954 F.3d 383
1st Cir.2020Background
- Fuentes-Moreno committed two Humacao robberies on February 4, 2017; charged a year later and pled guilty to two Hobbs Act robbery counts (Counts One and Three) under a plea agreement.
- Plea agreement recommended 144 months imprisonment on each convicted count, to run concurrently with each other, and reserved the parties’ right to request concurrency with a previously imposed 40-month sentence for a March 1, 2017 firearm possession (which itself ran consecutive to a 10‑month supervised‑release revocation). Counts charging § 924(c) offenses and a felon‑in‑possession count were dismissed.
- The PSR calculated a Total Offense Level of 24 and Criminal History Category IV (eight points), yielding a Guidelines range of 77–96 months; Fuentes objected, seeking to treat the March 1 offense as "relevant conduct" so the Humacao sentence would run concurrent with the 40‑month sentence.
- At sentencing the district court found no reliable evidence that the same gun was used in both matters and declined to treat the March 1 firearm offense as relevant conduct; the court varied upward and imposed 144 months on Counts One and Three, concurrent with each other but consecutive to the 40‑month and 10‑month sentences.
- On appeal Fuentes challenged (1) the district court’s decision to impose the sentence consecutively rather than concurrently (procedural unreasonableness), and (2) the PSR’s CHC IV calculation (which he argued was waived). The government conceded the appellate waiver did not bar the concurrency claim but argued the CHC challenge was waived.
- The First Circuit held Fuentes bore the burden to prove the relevant‑conduct link, the district court did not clearly err in declining to credit his uncorroborated statements about the gun, and affirmed both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fuentes) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea waiver bars Fuentes's CHC challenge | Waiver should not bar CHC claim because it is tied to the concurrency/relevant‑conduct issue | Waiver bars appeal on CHC; Fuentes failed to brief why waiver shouldn’t apply | Waiver bars CHC challenge; Fuentes forfeited argument by not briefing waiver exception |
| Whether district court procedurally erred by imposing sentence consecutive to the March 1 sentence (i.e., failing to treat the March 1 offense as "relevant conduct") | The same firearm was used in both offenses; that makes the March 1 offense relevant conduct, which would trigger §5G1.3 and require concurrency | Gov't: robberies and a felon‑in‑possession offense are not grouped; Fuentes failed to carry burden to prove same‑gun fact; review for abuse of discretion (or plain error) | No clear error: defendant failed to produce corroborating evidence; district court reasonably discounted his statements; no procedural error in imposing consecutive sentence |
| Whether the 144‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable | The procedural error (failure to find relevant conduct) renders the above‑Guidelines sentence substantively unreasonable | Sentence is within statutory limits, matches plea agreement recommendation, and the court gave a plausible, defensible rationale | Substantively reasonable: district court articulated a plausible rationale (seriousness, dismissed firearm counts, deterrence, protection) and result is within the wide range of reasonable sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (framework for procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Miliano, 480 F.3d 605 (1st Cir. 2007) (enforceability of appellate‑waiver provisions)
- United States v. Colón‑Rosario, 921 F.3d 306 (1st Cir. 2019) (application of plea‑waiver enforcement principles)
- United States v. Santiago‑Burgos, 750 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2014) (definition and scope of "relevant conduct" under U.S.S.G. §1B1.3)
- United States v. McElroy, 587 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 2009) (use of Guideline commentary to interpret §1B1.3)
- United States v. Montalvo‑Febus, 930 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2019) (sentencing court’s discretion to assess reliability of evidence)
- United States v. Nieves‑Mercado, 847 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2017) (multifaceted standard of review for sentencing decisions)