United States v. Guzman-Fernandez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9951
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Guzman, a Kmart supervisor, pleaded guilty to one-count conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robberies after providing insider security information that facilitated two armed robberies causing injury and restraint; total loss exceeded $50,000.
- Presentence calculations produced a Guidelines sentencing range (GSR) of 97–121 months (offense level 30, CH I) after enhancements for brandished firearm, bodily injury, restraint, loss > $50,000, and abuse of trust.
- At sentencing, defense asked for 97 months; government asked for 120 months. The district court imposed 135 months (14 months above the top of the GSR) after applying 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
- The court explained the variance by citing Guzman’s maturity/insider knowledge, the bold, planned nature of his conduct, the insider role’s special aggravation beyond typical trust-abuse, and the seriousness of injury/restraint in the robberies.
- Guzman objected, arguing the Guidelines already accounted for the worst aspects of the case and that the upward variance was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of upward variance (failure to explain) | Govt: district court adequately considered §3553(a) and gave reasons for variance. | Guzman: court failed to articulate reasons beyond factors already in the Guidelines. | Court affirmed: district court identified additional offender-specific reasons (age/maturity, bold/planned insider role) and explained how facts differed from the ordinary Guidelines case. |
| Substantive reasonableness of 14-month variance | Govt: variance modest and justified by combination of §3553(a) factors; ample discretion to weigh overlapping factors. | Guzman: variance amounted to an excessive sentence because enhancements already covered the conduct. | Court affirmed: 14-month variance is modest; combined rationale was plausible within sentencing discretion. |
| Use of overlapping factors / double-counting | Govt: overlap permitted; court may rely on same facts to address distinct sentencing concerns. | Guzman: court impermissibly double-counted conduct already used in Guidelines. | Court affirmed: district court explained why overlapping factors were different in kind (e.g., trust abuse showing bold, premeditated conduct) and double use was acceptable when addressing discrete concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for appellate review of within- and outside-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Politano, 522 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2008) (procedural and substantive dimensions of reasonableness review)
- United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (requirement that reasons for variance be rooted in offense or offender characteristics)
- United States v. Del Valle-Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 171 (1st Cir. 2014) (sliding-scale review of variance magnitude and need for commensurate justification)
- United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (courts may rely on offender characteristics and distinguish ordinary Guidelines cases)
- United States v. Zapete-Garcia, 447 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2006) (when a factor is included in Guidelines, court must explain why defendant’s case differs from the ordinary)
- United States v. Oquendo-Garcia, 783 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2015) (distinction between departure and variance; multiple reasonable sentences exist)