United States v. González-Rodríguez, 859 F.3d 134

In Aug. 2015 Puerto Rico police executed a search warrant at González’s residence and found a Glock modified to fire automatically, two extended magazines taped together, 52 rounds of ammo, a back slide cover, a cell phone, a scale, and small plastic bags.
González admitted owning the gun, acknowledged it could fire automatically, and reported heavy daily marijuana use and taking Tramadol.
He pleaded guilty to possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2). The PSR applied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) and, after a 3-level acceptance reduction, calculated offense level 17, CHC I, guideline range 24–30 months; González did not object to the PSR.
At sentencing the government sought 33 months (upward variance); González requested 18 months (downward variance). The district court imposed 33 months, citing risk to the community and deterrence.
On appeal González argued the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable, raising (a) alleged exaggerations/misstatements by the government, (b) improper reliance on PSR substance-abuse assertions, (c) reliance on uncharged criminal conduct, and (d) inadequate explanation for the above-guidelines sentence.

Issue	González’s Argument	Government/District Court Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness of sentence	Court exaggerated González’s Tramadol use and relied on PSR statements without basis	PSR is reliable absent timely objection; court may rely on it	No error — PSR reliance permissible; González failed to preserve objections
Government’s factual assertions at sentencing (e.g., danger of machine gun, ammo rhetoric)	Government misled court with unsupported or exaggerated claims	Government may offer sentencing arguments; assertions supported by record (extended mags, taped mags, admissions)	No plain error; rhetorical flourishes not reversible
Reliance on uncharged criminal conduct (drug distribution inference)	Government improperly urged sentence based on unproven/unentered charges	PSR contained facts (anonymous tip, scale, baggies, drug use) supporting inference; court could choose among plausible inferences	No plain error; court could consider circumstantial evidence of uncharged conduct
Adequacy of district court’s explanation for upward variance and substantive reasonableness	Explanation was too brief to justify above-guidelines sentence; sentence substantively excessive	Court identified and weighed § 3553(a) factors, emphasized deterrence and community risk; above-range sentence not presumptively unreasonable	Affirmed: explanation and weighing adequate; 33-month sentence not substantively unreasonable

United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir.) (two-step sentencing review: procedural then substantive)
United States v. Ruiz-Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir.) (standards for procedural review)
United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir.) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing claims)
United States v. Cyr, 337 F.3d 96 (1st Cir.) (reliability of PSR at sentencing)
United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681 (7th Cir.) (nexus between habitual drug use and firearm restrictions)
United States v. Cruz-Vázquez, 841 F.3d 546 (1st Cir.) (machine-gun not for personal defense rationale upheld)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.) (district court’s obligation to explain deviations)
United States v. Cortés-Medina, 819 F.3d 566 (1st Cir.) (inadequate explanation alone not plain error without more)
United States v. Arroyo-Maldonado, 791 F.3d 193 (1st Cir.) (no presumption of unreasonableness for outside-Guidelines sentence)
United States v. Reyes-Rivera, 812 F.3d 79 (1st Cir.) (sentence permissible if a plausible rationale and defensible result)
United States v. DesMarais, 938 F.2d 347 (1st Cir.) (presence of scale and baggies supports inference of intent to distribute)