United States v. Lasanta-Sanchez
681 F. App'x 32
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Lasanta pleaded guilty in 2010 to possession of a machinegun, received 21 months imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release.
- About six months after release, probation officers found another machinegun, ammunition, and magazines at his home and vehicle.
- In a separate case (Case No. 14-063) Lasanta pled guilty to being a felon in possession and received 51 months imprisonment.
- The Probation Office filed a supervised-release revocation in this case; Lasanta admitted the violation.
- At the revocation hearing defense counsel conceded the new sentence "certainly cannot be concurrent" with the 14-063 sentence and requested a 15–21 month guideline term; the district court imposed 24 months to run consecutively and warned Lasanta about potential future penalties.
- Lasanta appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to recognize its discretion to impose a concurrent sentence, and (2) the court sentenced him based on the erroneous view that his prior machinegun possession was a "crime of violence." The First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lasanta) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by not recognizing authority to order concurrent rather than consecutive sentence | Lasanta: court should have considered and could have ordered concurrency | Gov: Lasanta (through counsel) expressly conceded concurrency was inappropriate; waived the claim | Waived — counsel's explicit concession in district court amounted to waiver, so claim cannot be resurrected on appeal |
| Whether district court relied on a legal error by treating prior machinegun possession as a "crime of violence" when imposing sentence | Lasanta: court sentenced him at least partly on the mistaken belief his prior conviction was a crime of violence | Gov: either waived by defense acquiescence or, in any event, the record shows no such legal error affected the sentence | No plain error — the court's warnings about future penalties were admonitory and did not drive the sentence; the court based sentence on recidivism and timing of the new offense |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arsenault, 833 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2016) (standard of review for preserved vs. unpreserved sentencing claims)
- United States v. Walker, 538 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2008) (distinguishing waiver from forfeiture)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 311 F.3d 435 (1st Cir. 2002) (definition and effect of waiver)
- United States v. Torres-Rosario, 658 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 2011) (explicit concessions constitute waiver)
- United States v. Gates, 709 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2013) (party cannot concede then repudiate issue on appeal)
- United States v. Ocasio-Cancel, 727 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2013) (waiver where defense declined to seek concurrent sentence)
- United States v. Acevedo–Sueros, 826 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2016) (review where claim fails even under plain-error standard)
- United States v. Rodríguez-Meléndez, 828 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2016) (plain error where sentencing relied on a demonstrably false fact)
- United States v. Ruiz-Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir. 2015) (standards for excusing waivers in rare cases)
- United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (failure to develop an argument forfeits it on appeal)