United States v. Gonzalez
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23351
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Gonzalez pled guilty (2006) to possession with intent to distribute; sentenced to 30 months + 3 years supervised release.
- First supervised-release term revoked after positive drug tests; court imposed 6 months imprisonment and a new 30-month supervised-release term.
- During second supervised release, four incidents occurred (Nashua altercation; Portsmouth domestic-assault complaint; Lawrence car chase with abandoned vehicle; New Jersey crash and false ID) that prompted revocation proceedings.
- At the October 9, 2012 revocation hearing Gonzalez admitted guilt to three violations (failure to call for drug-test instructions; possession of a simulated document; leaving jurisdiction) and the court discussed the four incidents.
- The district court revoked supervised release and imposed an 18-month prison sentence (no additional supervised release). Gonzalez appealed, arguing Rule 32(i)(3)(B) violations and erroneous factfinding about the Nashua incident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Gonzalez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) applies and was violated at a supervised-release revocation sentencing | Rule 32 need not apply to revocation proceedings; in any event, no material disputed facts were raised requiring a ruling | Rule 32(i)(3)(B) applies to revocation sentencing and the court failed to rule on controverted facts | Court avoided deciding applicability; assuming arguendo Rule 32 applies, Gonzalez did not invoke or preserve any factual objections, so no Rule 32 violation was shown |
| Whether discussion of uncharged/incidental events (Nashua, Portsmouth, Lawrence) converted them into controverted matters under Rule 32 | These incidents were undisputed and relevant to sentencing; the court may draw inferences from undisputed facts | Discussion turned those incidents into controverted matters triggering Rule 32 protections | Court held the incidents were undisputed; the court’s commentary addressed their significance, not factual disputes, so Rule 32(i)(3)(B) was not implicated |
| Whether the district court committed clear-error in factfinding about the Nashua incident | Court relied on the parties’ agreed account and did not make adverse factual findings unsupported by the record | Court made erroneous factual findings about Nashua that affected the sentence | No clear error: government did not contest Gonzalez’s version and the court accepted the parties’ account; reliance was proper |
| Standard of review invoked (preservation/plain error/de novo) | Government argued plain-error review because of lack of specific objection below | Gonzalez contended de novo review applies | Court did not resolve preservation dispute but held Gonzalez lost even under de novo review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (court may draw conclusions from undisputed facts; Rule 32 limited to contested material facts)
- United States v. Garcia, 954 F.2d 12 (1st Cir. 1992) (sentencing court may rely on presentence-report facts when objections challenge interpretations, not underlying facts)
- United States v. González-Vélez, 587 F.3d 494 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard of review for Rule 32 compliance generally de novo)
- United States v. McGee, 529 F.3d 691 (6th Cir. 2008) (facts must be sufficiently controverted to trigger sentencing court's duty under Rule 32)
- United States v. Patterson, 128 F.3d 1259 (8th Cir. 1997) (Rule 32 and Rule 32.1 can operate together in revocation proceedings)
- United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933 (6th Cir. 1998) (Rule 32 requirements not intended to apply to supervised-release revocation hearings)
- United States v. Torres-Vázquez, 731 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2013) (no error where district court relied on factual account agreed to by the parties)