United States v. Lasalle-Gonzalez
857 F.3d 46
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Samuel Lasalle González, a convicted felon, pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); plea agreement recommended a Guidelines range of 30–37 months.
- Facts (stipulated/PSR): Lasalle broke into a house, stole property, possessed a stolen revolver, exchanged gunfire with police, and a police officer was wounded; Lasalle was shot and hospitalized; he later admitted these facts to police.
- The PSR applied three Guidelines increases: +2 for a stolen firearm (U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(b)(4)), +4 for possession in connection with another felony (U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(b)(6)), and +6 for injuring a law enforcement officer (U.S.S.G. §3A1.2(c)(1)), producing a Guidelines range exceeding the statutory maximum of 120 months.
- The district court adopted the PSR findings, applied the enhancements, and sentenced Lasalle to the 10-year statutory maximum (to run concurrently with a state 10-year sentence). Lasalle appealed.
- On appeal Lasalle argued: the stolen-gun enhancement is invalid without a mens rea element; the relevant-conduct enhancements violate due process and the Sixth Amendment because based on uncharged conduct not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; the sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable; and counsel was ineffective for not advising withdrawal of the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lasalle) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of stolen-firearm enhancement lacking mens rea | Enhancement is unconstitutional and violates due process because it imposes punishment without proof Lasalle knew the gun was stolen | Enhancement is advisory Guidelines factor; does not alter statutory range or create an element of the crime; Application Note explicitly applies regardless of knowledge | Enhancement constitutional: Guidelines are advisory; Application Note authoritatively omits scienter; no due process violation |
| Consistency with federal statutes (Gun Control Act, Sentencing Reform Act) | Enhancement conflicts with congressional intent (Gun Control Act generally requires mens rea) and is arbitrary under Sentencing Reform Act's purposes | Enhancement advances Act goals (stolen guns are particularly dangerous); Sentencing Commission reasonably related enhancement to culpability and deterrence | Enhancement not contrary to the Gun Control Act or Sentencing Reform Act; not arbitrary or capricious |
| Use of uncharged relevant conduct to enhance sentence; proof standard | Facts underlying enhancements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; relying on uncharged conduct violates Sixth Amendment/due process and can create disproportionate sentencing ('tail wagging the dog') | Facts at sentencing need only be proven by a preponderance; Alleyne/Apprendi do not require jury findings for facts that do not change statutory range; Lombard is an outlier limited to extraordinary circumstances | Relevant-conduct enhancements valid; preponderance standard governs; Alleyne/Apprendi do not compel beyond- a-reasonable-doubt findings here; no Sixth Amendment/due process violation absent extraordinary circumstances |
| Procedural/substantive reasonableness of 10-year sentence | Sentence procedurally flawed (PSR unreliable, inadequate explanation) and substantively greater than necessary (parsimony) | PSR bore sufficient indicia of reliability; court adequately explained main factors; sentence within advisory/Governing statutory max given offense severity and history | No reversible procedural error; explanation adequate; substantive sentence reasonable and within the universe of permissible sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (discusses mens rea as traditional element of crimes)
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (mens rea requirement and notice in firearm statute context)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (Guidelines advisory nature and sentencing discretion)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (facts increasing mandatory minimums are elements)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (jury finding required for facts that increase statutory penalties)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (Ex Post Facto analysis for Guidelines changes)
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (permissibility of considering acquitted conduct at sentencing)
- United States v. Lombard, 72 F.3d 170 (limiting precedent addressing extraordinary "tail wagging the dog" sentencing situations)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (Guidelines rendered advisory)