United States v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez
859 F.3d 134
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- In Aug. 2015 PRPD executed a search warrant at a Río Grande residence; officers found José Ramón González‑Rodríguez in possession of a Glock pistol modified to fire automatically, two extended magazines taped for faster loading, and 52 rounds of ammunition. Items recovered also included a cell phone, a scale, and small plastic bags. González admitted ownership and knew the pistol could fire automatically; he also admitted heavy marijuana use and Tramadol use (as recorded in the PSR).
- Federal authorities charged González with possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2). He pleaded guilty.
- The Probation Office calculated a total offense level of 17 (after a 3‑level acceptance reduction) and criminal history I, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of 24–30 months. González did not contest the PSR.
- At sentencing the government sought an upward variance to 33 months; González sought a downward variance to 18 months. The district court imposed 33 months, citing community risk, punishment, and deterrence. González timely appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness.
- The First Circuit reviewed (assuming plain‑error for unpreserved claims) and affirmed the 33‑month sentence, finding no procedural or substantive error in the district court’s sentencing determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (González) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness — reliance on PSR substance‑use facts | PSR wrongly attributed Tramadol use to González; court exaggerated drug use | PSR is reliable and defendant failed to object; court may rely on PSR facts | Court may rely on unchallenged PSR; no plain error found |
| Procedural — government misstatements at sentencing | Government misstated dangerousness, ammunition quantity, and suggested uncharged drug activity, misleading the court | Government presented legitimate sentencing arguments and record support (PSR, recovered scale/baggies, anonymous tip) | Alleged misstatements were not material; record supported government’s inferences; no plain error |
| Procedural — adequacy of district court’s explanation for above‑Guidelines sentence | Explanation was brief and insufficient to justify variance | Court sufficiently considered §3553(a) factors and identified mitigating/aggravating factors | Failure to object below precludes relief; no plain error shown |
| Substantive reasonableness of a 33‑month above‑Guidelines sentence | 33 months is greater than necessary given mitigating factors and uncertain danger posed | Sentence promotes punishment and deterrence; gun + habitual drug use and indicia of drug distribution justify severity | Sentence is defensible under the totality of circumstances; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (two‑step sentencing‑reasonableness review; deference to district court’s discretion)
- United States v. Ruiz‑Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir. 2015) (standards for review of guideline interpretation and factfinding at sentencing)
- United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2001) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved sentencing claims)
- United States v. Cyr, 337 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2003) (reliability of PSR for sentencing purposes)
- United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2010) (linking habitual drug abuse and risk posed by firearms in sentencing analysis)
- United States v. Arroyo‑Maldonado, 791 F.3d 193 (1st Cir. 2015) (no presumption of unreasonableness for outside‑Guidelines sentences)