United States v. Montero-Montero, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5395

Defendant Narciso Montero-Montero was before the district court for violating conditions of supervised release imposed after a prior narcotics conspiracy conviction (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846).
The advisory Sentencing Guidelines range for the supervised-release violation was 6–12 months (USSG §§7B1.1(a)(2), 7B1.4(a)).
The district court imposed the statutory maximum sentence of 60 months (18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)), a 5-fold upward variance from the top of the guideline range.
The sentencing transcript contained no coherent or adequate explanation for the large upward variance; the record offered few clues from which to infer the court’s reasoning.
Appellant appealed, arguing procedural error (failure to explain the variance adequately) and substantive unreasonableness; the First Circuit reviewed for plain error as the claim was not preserved below.
The First Circuit vacated the 60‑month sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court plainly erred by failing to give an adequate explanation for so large an upward variance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to state adequate reasons for a 500% upward variance from the guideline range	Government: sentence lawful; no specific procedural defect preserved below	Montero: district court failed to state adequate reasons for imposing a 60‑month statutory‑maximum sentence	Vacated: plain error—court clearly failed to explain the large upward variance, affecting substantial rights and the appearance of fairness
Whether the sentence was substantively reasonable (plausible sentencing rationale and defensible result)	Government: sentence defensible under §3553(a) factors	Montero: no plausible sentencing rationale was articulated to justify the statutory maximum	Not reached: court remanded on procedural‑explanation ground and did not decide the substantive‑reasonableness claim

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing review framework and need to explain variances)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (procedural and substantive reasonableness standards)
United States v. Rivera-Gonzalez, 809 F.3d 706 (1st Cir. 2016) (vacatur for inadequately explained large upward variance)
United States v. Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2006) (requirement that a court identify main factors driving its sentence)
United States v. Ofray-Campos, 534 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (heavier explanation burden for non‑Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Smith, 445 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006) (greater deviation requires greater justification)