United States v. Matos-De-Jesus, 856 F.3d 174

In Oct. 2015 Puerto Rico police stopped José Matos-de-Jesús, found two modified (automatic) Glock pistols, multiple high-capacity magazines, and >100 rounds in his car; he threatened an officer during arrest.
A federal grand jury indicted him for possession of firearms by a convicted felon (18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1)) and possession of machine guns (§922(o)); each count referenced possession of both firearms. He pled guilty to both counts.
At sentencing the parties and court calculated a total offense level of 19, criminal history category IV, guideline range 46–57 months; the district court varied upward to 72 months.
The district court explained the upward variance by citing the defendant’s extensive criminal history (including a second-degree murder conviction), threats to an officer, prevalence of gun violence locally, and the fact he possessed two automatic weapons.
On appeal Matos argued (1) the court impermissibly “double-counted” the second gun because the guidelines already accounted for firearm possession and (2) the court inadequately explained and substantively erred in imposing the substantial upward variance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether considering the second gun at sentencing constituted impermissible double-counting	Govt: district court may consider facts relevant to §3553(a) unless expressly forbidden	Matos: second gun was already accounted for by guidelines; using it for variance double-counted	Court: No error — guidelines do not account specifically for two guns; considering second gun under §3553(a) is permitted (no double-counting)
Whether the court failed to adequately explain the upward variance	Govt: district court identified primary reasons for variance	Matos: reliance on second gun (allegedly included in guidelines) required a fuller explanation	Court: Explanation adequate — district court identified primary reasons; plain-error review fails
Whether the 72-month sentence was substantively unreasonable	Govt: sentence correlates to offense gravity, deterrence, and defendant’s history	Matos: variance excessive given guidelines and risk-of-reoffense assessment	Court: No abuse of discretion — articulated plausible rationale and result within broad range of reasonableness
Appropriate standard of appellate review for unpreserved sentencing claims	Govt: preserved challenges reviewed de novo or for abuse; unpreserved for plain error	Matos: raised some objections generally at sentencing	Court: Specific double-counting claim was unpreserved -> plain-error review applied and failed

United States v. Panitz, 907 F.2d 1267 (1st Cir.) (vehicle-search/vehicle-exception discussion)
United States v. Sepúlveda-Hernández, 817 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2016) (double-counting principles in sentencing)
Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017) (sentencing courts may consider facts about consecutive firearm penalties absent express prohibition)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (procedural/substantive two-step review for sentencing)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (contextual review of substantial variances)