United States v. Maximo Mateo-Medina
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 342
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Mateo‑Medina, a Dominican national, was deported in 2012 after a passport‑fraud conviction; he later reentered the U.S. to care for his terminally ill common‑law wife and young child and was charged with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- He pled guilty; the PSR calculated an advisory Guideline range of 8–14 months (later adjusted to 6–12 months after a one‑level downward departure).
- The PSR noted two prior convictions and six other arrests that did not result in convictions; the PSR did not describe the conduct underlying those arrests.
- At sentencing both parties advocated time served (~6 months); the district court imposed 12 months + 1 day and relied in part on Mateo‑Medina’s prior arrest record, misstating the number of arrests.
- Mateo‑Medina appealed, arguing the district court violated due process by considering bare arrest records (arrests without convictions) in imposing sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by considering bare arrest records at sentencing | Mateo‑Medina: consideration of arrests without convictions violates due process and cannot support a sentence increase | Government: court’s remarks reflected credibility doubts, not reliance on criminality; any error was not outcome‑determinative (plain error) | Court held plain error: relying on bare arrest record (and misstating it) is impermissible and prejudicial |
| Standard of review (preserved objection vs. plain error) | Mateo‑Medina: objection was preserved at sentencing so review should be plenary | Government: objection was forfeited; review should be for plain error | Court avoided deciding preservation; applied plain‑error doctrine because precedent requires reversal when bare arrest records are considered |
| Whether the error affected substantial rights (prejudice) | Mateo‑Medina: improper consideration influenced the sentence despite joint recommendation for time served | Government: the sentence was reasonable given other §3553(a) factors | Court held there was a reasonable probability the error affected the sentence and thus prejudicial; resentencing required |
| Whether consideration of bare arrests undermines fairness and increases disparities | Mateo‑Medina: bare arrests are unreliable and exacerbate racial/socioeconomic disparities | Government: argued caregiving context could explain lack of interactions with criminal justice (irrelevant) | Court agreed with Mateo‑Medina, citing research on arrest bias; relying on bare arrests undermines fairness and public confidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Berry, 553 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2009) (a bare arrest record cannot justify sentence enhancement; considering it is plain error)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (plain‑error prejudice requires a reasonable probability the error affected the outcome)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (two‑step review of sentencing: procedural then substantive reasonableness)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing courts must calculate Guidelines, consider §3553(a), and explain deviations)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Guidelines are advisory; sentencing discretion is constrained by procedural safeguards)
Result: The Third Circuit vacated Mateo‑Medina’s sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court plainly erred by considering and misstating his bare arrest record, which prejudiced the sentencing outcome.