United States v. Guzman-Montanez, 808 F.3d 552

On March 14, 2012, police observed two suspicious men matching descriptions from an attempted robbery in Bayamón, Puerto Rico, one carrying a pistol on Guzmán-Montañez.
Guzmán-Montañez fled to a restaurant bathroom; officers searched the bathroom and found a loaded pistol in a diaper-changing station.
On March 28, 2012, Guzmán-Montañez was indicted on one count of felon in possession of a firearm and one count of possession of a firearm in a school zone.
On July 18, 2012, he was convicted on both counts after a three-day jury trial.
The presentence report grouped the counts, calculated a combined guideline range with a base level of 14, plus a two-level enhancement for a stolen firearm, yielding level 16, with criminal history Category I, producing a range of 21–27 months.
The district court upwardly departed/variant to 60 months, citing substantial underrepresentation of Guzmán-Montañez's criminal history and the likelihood of future violence.
On appeal, we reversed the school-zone conviction in 2014 and remanded for resentencing; at resentencing, the district court again imposed a 60-month upward variance.
The district court explained the 60-month sentence by emphasizing the offense’s seriousness, public protection, deterrence, and Guzmán-Montañez’s background, and the panel affirmed the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural adequacy of explanation	Guzmán-Montañez argues the court did not adequately explain why 60 months remained after reversal.	The district court properly explained the sentence and relied on §3553(a) factors.	No procedural error; explanation adequate.
Substantive reasonableness of the variance	Guzmán-Montañez contends the upward variance was unwarranted given his long prior clean record.	The court permissibly variance upward due to seriousness and potential violence.	Sentence substantively reasonable; no abuse of discretion.

United States v. Arroyo-Maldonado, 791 F.3d 193 (1st Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing sentencing variances and procedures)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (upward variances require substantial justification; not a pedantic rule)
United States v. Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2006) (court may uphold less-than-precise sentencing explanations)
United States v. Fernández-Garay, 788 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2015) (framework for review of sentencing decisions in the First Circuit)