United States v. Mendes, 107 F.4th 22

Calvin Mendes was initially convicted on drug distribution and firearm charges, sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Mendes violated supervised release multiple times, leading to three separate revocation hearings between 2022 and 2023.
The most recent violations included drug use, employment-related dishonesty, and associating with a felon; two contested violations (distribution of obscene material and a crime related to an arrest) were ultimately not considered on their merits.
At the third revocation, the guideline sentencing range was 5-11 months, but the government argued for a 30-month sentence, citing repeated noncompliance.
The district court imposed a 30-month sentence, finding Mendes's serial violations and lack of deterrence warranted a substantial upward variance.
Mendes appealed, arguing procedural flaws in the sentencing, particularly that the court failed to adequately justify the variance and improperly relied on contested or community-based factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of the court's explanation for upward variance	Mendes: The court did not sufficiently explain why such a significant upward variance was justified.	Gov't: Repeated violations and noncompliance justified a higher sentence; rationale was explained.	Court's explanation and rationale for upward variance were adequate given serial violations.
Reliance on unproven criminal conduct	Mendes: Court improperly considered an arrest and-related conduct that did not result in conviction.	Gov't: The conduct was not relied on for sentencing, only for admitted violations; focus was elsewhere.	Court did not rely on unproven conduct; sentence based on repeated violation of supervised release.
Consideration of community-based factors	Mendes: Court improperly factored in general dangers of fentanyl and community impact.	Gov't: The court's remarks about fentanyl were contextual and not the basis for the variance.	No procedural error; the court did not improperly consider community factors for the sentence.
Whether the court engaged in an unauthorized departure	Mendes: The court improperly imposed an "upward departure" not authorized under guidelines.	Gov't: The sentence was an upward variance under § 3553(a), not a guideline departure.	The court imposed a variance, not a departure, and acted within its discretion.

United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sets standard for reviewing the reasonableness of a variance from sentencing guidelines)
United States v. Del Valle-Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 171 (1st Cir. 2014) (adequacy of sentencing explanation; only a plausible and coherent rationale required)
United States v. Soto-Soto, 855 F.3d 445 (1st Cir. 2017) (serial supervised release violations can justify substantial upward variance)
United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (review of district court sentencing discretion and consideration of community-based factors)
United States v. Marrero-Pérez, 914 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2019) (error to sentence based on unproven or unsubstantiated criminal conduct)