United States v. Maldonado-Escarfullery, 689 F.3d 94

Three firearms-related schemes led to three cases against Maldonado-Escarfullery; he pled guilty in Case 09-109 and Case 09-143, and later Case 10-447 occurred after a battery of breaches.
At a consolidated sentencing hearing on February 2, 2011, the district court imposed a total 72-month term: 12 months 1 day (Case 09-109), 15 months (Case 09-143, concurrent with 09-109), and 57 months (Case 10-447, consecutive).
Guidelines calculated with grouping under § 3D1.2 yielded an offense level of 25 and criminal history I, producing a 57–71 month range; the court added enhancements for firearms quantity, trafficking, and use in another felony, then subtracted three levels for acceptance of responsibility.
The government recommended concurrent sentences for the first two cases; Maldonado-Escarfullery urged full concurrency, which would cap at 57 months.
Maldonado-Escarfullery argued the court failed to comply with § 3584(b) and did not properly apply the 2009 Guidelines edition; the court, however, treated the 3553(a) factors as controlling in deciding concurrency.
On appeal, Maldonado-Escarfullery challenged only the consecutive sentence in Case 10-447; the government argued waivers foreclosed challenges in some cases, but not the Case 10-447 consecutive sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court properly weigh § 3553(a) factors in imposing a consecutive sentence for Case 10-447?	Maldonado-Escarfullery contends the court ignored 3553(a) in ordering consecutive terms.	Maldonado-Escarfullery argues lack of proper consideration of 3553(a) factors and a potential § 3584(b) misapplication.	Yes; the court sufficiently weighed 3553(a) factors.
Was Maldonado-Escarfullery's claim of procedural guideline miscalculation preserved and meritorious?	Argument centers on a possible mis-statement of the § 4-level calculation for the firearms-factor enhancement.	Dispute about a 4-level vs 0-level adjustment and overall guideline application.	No reversible error; the district court properly calculated and applied the guidelines given the record.
Do the appellate waivers bar challenges to Case 09-109 and 10-447?	Waivers bar claims in 09-109 and 10-447 based on plea agreements.	Case 10-447 challenge falls outside the waivers because the agreement lacked a concurrency/controversy directive.	Waiver does not bar the Case 10-447 challenge; the claim remains reviewable.

Carrasco-de-Jesús v. United States, 589 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (two-step abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing appeals)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (clarified standard for review of sentences; appellate respect for 3553(a) factors)
Dávila-González v. United States, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2010) (weighing § 3553(a) factors in sentencing; sufficiency of reasoning considered)
Madera-Ortiz v. United States, 637 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011) (uses unchallenged PSR and sentencing transcript to frame facts for appeal)