United States v. Montalvo-Febus, 930 F.3d 30

Defendant Jose Eli Montalvo‑Febus pleaded guilty to attempted possession of child pornography for attempting to photograph a naked 14‑year‑old; two §2423(a) transportation charges were dismissed per plea agreement.
Plea agreement set base offense level 18, with a 2‑level computer enhancement and 3‑level acceptance reduction, yielding offense level 17; parties reserved competing non‑guideline sentence positions (defense 60 months; government up to 108 months).
PSR found three prior Puerto Rico convictions and a Criminal History Category III, producing a Guidelines range of 30–37 months; statutory maximum was 10 years.
Victim impact materials and the government’s sentencing memorandum described significant emotional harm to the victim and recounted that the victim said she was "naive" and was hurt when Montalvo took her virginity; victim also testified at sentencing about school ostracism and suicidal ideation.
District court adopted the PSR calculations but imposed an upward‑variant sentence of 84 months imprisonment and ten years’ supervised release, finding the sentence reasonably necessary under §3553(a).
On appeal Montalvo raised for the first time procedural and substantive unreasonableness challenges, principally arguing the court relied on prejudicial/misleading statements in the government’s sentencing memorandum; the government conceded the plea waiver did not bar this appeal.

Issue	Montalvo's Argument	Government/District Court Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness: reliance on government's sentencing memorandum and victim statements	Court relied on memorandum that allegedly mischaracterized the victim as "naive" and falsely stated Montalvo "made her bleed"; these were prejudicial misrepresentations	Memorandum accurately relayed the victim’s statements; defense had opportunity to challenge but did not; sentencing courts may consider unchallenged prosecutor statements	No procedural error; memorandum recited victim’s account and was consistent with PSR and victim testimony; plain‑error review fails
Substantive reasonableness of 84‑month upward variant sentence	Sentence is unreasonable because it was allegedly marred by procedural error	Sentence falls within the broad range of reasonable outcomes given offense conduct, victim harm, defendant’s criminal history, and §3553(a) factors	Sentence is substantively reasonable and affirmed

United States v. Colón‑Rosario, 921 F.3d 306 (1st Cir.) (standard for drawing facts from plea agreement, PSR, and sentencing transcript)
United States v. Ruiz‑Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir.) (bifurcated review: procedural then substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir.) (same bifurcated sentencing‑review framework)
United States v. Arroyo‑Maldonado, 791 F.3d 193 (1st Cir.) (plain‑error review of unpreserved procedural challenges)
United States v. Díaz‑Arroyo, 797 F.3d 125 (1st Cir.) (prosecutor statements not challenged at sentencing may be reliable information)
United States v. Cintrón‑Echautegui, 604 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (sentencing court has wide discretion to assess reliability of evidence)
United States v. Pedroza‑Orengo, 817 F.3d 829 (1st Cir.) (substantive‑reasonableness inquiry considers range of reasonable sentences)
United States v. King, 741 F.3d 305 (1st Cir.) (recognizing broad universe of reasonable sentences)