United States v. Madera-Ortiz, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3754

Defendant Walter J. Madera-Ortiz pleaded guilty to transferring obscene materials to a minor (count 7) and was sentenced to 21 months by the district court.
Plea and documentary record: January 3, 2009 internet chats with who appellant believed to be a 13-year-old; DHS agent was the recipient.
Over ~five months, appellant sent seven exchanges with obscene materials and webcam footage of self-pleasuring.
PSI Report portrayed him as a model citizen with no prior criminal history, stable employment, and strong family/community ties.
Guideline calculations: base level 10; +5 for minor victim; +2 for use of interactive computer service; -3 for acceptance of responsibility (judge chose -3 instead of -2).
GSR computed as 15–21 months; district court sentenced at the top of the range, with three years of supervised release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the GSR was treated as a finish line	Madera-Ortiz argues court treated GSR as mandatory finish line.	Madera-Ortiz contends court fixed within-range sentence regardless of record.	No; court treated GSR as advisory and considered record.
Whether the court provided an adequate explanation	Arguments that explanation was insufficient or perfunctory.	Defense claims explanation too brief to support rationale.	Explanation deemed sufficient given the record and need not be pedantic.
Whether mitigating circumstances were properly considered	court failed to weigh mitigating factors sufficiently in favor of lower sentence.	court weighed mitigating factors within broad discretion.	Court balanced factors within wide margins; no error in weighing.
Whether top-of-range sentencing foreclosed room for harsher conduct cases	Sentence forecloses harsher penalties for more culpable conduct.	Top-of-range within GSR does not fix maximum; more serious conduct permissible.	Distinguishable from Franquiz-Ortiz; sentence within statutory max and adjustable under Booker.

Pelletier, 469 F.3d 194 (1st Cir. 2006) (within-range sentences require less explanation but still must be reasonable)
Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2006) (within-range sentences require plausible rationale for reasonableness)
Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (defendant cannot expect reduced sentence solely for mitigating factors)
Dávila-González, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2010) (sentencing roadmap: GSR, departures, then §3553(a) factors)
Carrasco-de-Jesús, 589 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (district court’s calculations and reasoned explanations reviewed for reasonableness)
Franquiz-Ortiz, 607 F.3d 280 (1st Cir. 2010) (remand for resentencing when imposing near-maximum limits eliminates room for harsher conduct)