United States v. Morales-Negron, 974 F.3d 63

Background:

In Feb. 2016 DEA and U.S. Marshals captured William Morales-Negrón after he fled during a rooftop chase; agents recovered a fanny pack containing a loaded Glock modified to fire as a machinegun, extra magazines (one high-capacity), ammunition, drugs, and cash.
Morales was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and for unlawfully possessing a machinegun (18 U.S.C. § 922(o)); he pleaded guilty to both counts.
Sentencing guidelines produced a range of 37–46 months (offense level 17, criminal history IV); the district court imposed an upward variance to 70 months, citing prior lenient treatment, revoked supervision, abandonment of treatment, fugitive status, weapons/drug associations, and Puerto Rico’s gun-violence context.
Morales moved to obtain the written Statement of Reasons (SOR) to prepare his appeal; the district court denied access, saying the oral record controls and the SOR is administrative.
On appeal Morales argued (1) procedural error from reliance on conjectural factual findings (a video inference); (2) substantive unreasonableness of the upward variance under § 3553(a); and (3) error in denying access to the SOR.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural error: Did the district court rely on clearly erroneous facts (video/photo inference) in sentencing?	The government: the court’s inferences from the video/photo and Morales’s admissions were plausible and supported the sentence.	Morales: the court unduly relied on conjecture—video did not prove his connection to men/weapon and thus facts were clearly erroneous.	No reversible error: inferences were plausible; any error harmless given other weapons/photos/admissions.
Substantive reasonableness: Was the 70‑month upward variance an abuse of discretion?	The government: variance justified by weapons quantity, prior leniency, need for specific deterrence, and local gun-violence concerns.	Morales: court mis-weighed § 3553(a) factors, overstating priors and understating mitigation/rehabilitation.	Affirmed: district court gave plausible reasons; sentence within universe of reasonable outcomes and consistent with precedents.
Denial of SOR access as prejudicial to the appeal: Did withholding the SOR require vacatur or stay?	The government: adequate in-court oral explanation meant any SOR discrepancy would not prejudice the sentence; no vacatur required.	Morales: without the SOR he cannot assess errors in the written reasons; denial hindered his appeal preparation.	Denial did not prejudice the sentence, so no vacatur; but access should be granted — remanded to docket SOR under seal and give defense access.
Denial of SOR access as a matter of disclosure practice: May a district court refuse to give defense counsel the SOR?	The government: district court has discretion; SOR is administrative and oral record controls.	Morales: Judicial Conference policy and local standing order presume defense access; withholding invites suspicion and impedes counsel.	Court found denying access problematic in practice; remanded to docket the SOR under seal and grant defense counsel access.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Millán-Isaac, 749 F.3d 57 (procedural error standard when sentence rests on clearly erroneous facts)
United States v. Molloy, 324 F.3d 35 (standard of review for preserved sentencing objections)
United States v. Nuñez, 852 F.3d 141 (sentencing inferences need only be plausible)
United States v. Fernández-Garay, 788 F.3d 1 (harmless-error doctrine in sentencing context)
United States v. Vargas-García, 794 F.3d 162 (abuse-of-discretion review for substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Vazquez-Martinez, 812 F.3d 18 (Statement of Reasons serves largely administrative purpose)
United States v. Fields, 858 F.3d 24 (failure to docket or complete SOR does not require vacatur absent prejudice)
United States v. Espinoza, 514 F.3d 209 (denying SOR access is cause for concern)