United States v. Millan-Roman
854 F.3d 75
1st Cir.2017Background
- Millán-Román pled guilty to (1) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) and (2) possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (18 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C)).
- Plea agreement calculated Guidelines range for the § 924(c) count as the 60-month statutory minimum but jointly recommended an upward variant of 84 months; recommended 6 months for the drug count, consecutive, totaling 90 months.
- At sentencing the district court imposed 114 months on the § 924(c) count and 6 months for the drug count, to run consecutively, for a total of 120 months.
- Millán did not object at sentencing and appealed, alleging procedural errors (failure to consider § 3553(a) mitigating factors; improper use of the “Tómbola massacre”/community-violence evidence; denial of opportunity to address that incident) and substantive unreasonableness of the sentence.
- The district court referenced the Sabana Seca (Tómbola) massacre in discussing community deterrence but also discussed case-specific facts (multiple loaded firearms, admission to dealing) and explained why the parties’ 84-month recommendation was insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Millán's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court failed to consider § 3553(a) mitigating factors | Millán: Court ignored his lack of criminal history, family ties, employment, support of child | Gov: Court was aware; defense presented factors at sentencing and court expressly noted lack of record | Held: No plain error — court considered mitigating factors sufficiently without needing a ritualized recitation (Lozada‑Aponte) |
| Whether referencing the Tómbola massacre improperly introduced uncharged conduct | Millán: Use of massacre invoked uncharged conduct without proper procedure | Gov: Court did not attribute the massacre to Millán and appropriately referenced it for community deterrence | Held: No plain error — district court permissibly cited community violence as deterrence context (Flores‑Machicote, Politano) |
| Whether Millán was denied an opportunity to address the massacre | Millán: He was not given chance to respond as required | Gov: Court raised the incident during plea and again at sentencing; defense acknowledged awareness | Held: No error — record shows opportunities to address the matter (Berzon distinguished) |
| Whether the overall sentence was substantively unreasonable | Millán: Court over-weighted community violence and gave insufficient weight to case-specific mitigating facts | Gov: Sentence grounded in case-specific facts (weapons, admitted dealing) and permissible deterrence goals | Held: No abuse of discretion — sentence had a plausible rationale and defensible result (Rivera‑González) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arroyo‑Maldonado, 791 F.3d 193 (1st Cir. 2015) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- United States v. Lozada‑Aponte, 689 F.3d 791 (1st Cir. 2012) (district court need not recite every § 3553(a) factor or expressly weigh each)
- United States v. Sklar, 920 F.2d 107 (1st Cir. 1990) (procedure for introducing uncharged conduct at sentencing)
- United States v. Flores‑Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (permissible consideration of community‑based factors for deterrence)
- United States v. Politano, 522 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2008) (sentencing court may consider the community context of the offense)
- United States v. Santiago‑Rivera, 594 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2010) (treatment of community‑focus sentencing errors as procedural)
- United States v. Rivera‑González, 776 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2015) (analytical framework for substantive‑reasonableness review)