United States v. Lozada-Aponte
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17993
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Lozada-Aponte pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) for shipping firearms from Florida to Puerto Rico and received a 46-month sentence.
- The district court applied a two-category upward departure from criminal history Category I to III under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(1) based on Lozada’s prior convictions and arrest history.
- Three priors included an 1988 attempted murder and armed violence with a six-year prison sentence; the PSR shows extensive arrests and charges across multiple jurisdictions.
- Although the priors yielded zero criminal history points, the court found the history substantially underrepresented and indicative of future danger.
- The court justified the two-category departure by the serious nature of the 1988 conviction, the subsequent lengthy sentence, the arrest pattern, and the weapons/crime context in Puerto Rico.
- The district court discussed mitigating factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Lozada’s stable family life, noting the factors without requiring express weighing; this was reviewed under deferential standard and affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an upward two-category departure was reasonable | Lozada argues the departure was unwarranted given the priors and lack of underrepresentation. | Lozada contends the district court properly considered pattern of arrests and serious history to support departure. | Two-category departure affirmed as reasonable. |
| Adequacy of the district court's explanation for departure | Waives specifics; not satisfied with justification for two categories. | Court adequately explained factors including 1988 conviction, weapon nature, and Puerto Rico crime context. | Explanation adequate; remand not required. |
| Whether the court could consider community context post-Booker in determining sentence | Disagreement on considering community factors in departure. | District court may consider circumstances including community in which offense arose. | Court correctly considered mitigating/community factors. |
| Whether the court properly balanced mitigating factors under § 3553(a) | Asserted required explicit weighing of mitigating factors. | Explicit weighing not required; factors discussed in PSR were considered. | No explicit weighing required; factors were considered and not ignored. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Battle, 637 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2011) (reasonableness standard for sentencing review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (reasonableness review after Booker)
- United States v. Zapete-Garcia, 447 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2006) (series of arrests can support upward departure)
- United States v. Gallardo-Ortiz, 666 F.3d 808 (1st Cir. 2012) (upward departure based on high-power nature of firearm)
- United States v. Landry, 631 F.3d 597 (1st Cir. 2011) (upholding sentence based on identity fraud context)
- United States v. Politano, 522 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2008) (district court may consider circumstances including community)
- United States v. Arango, 508 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2007) (requirement to consider § 3553(a) factors without explicit weighing)
- United States v. Martins, 413 F.3d 139 (1st Cir. 2005) (court need not explicitly discuss all mitigating factors)