United States v. Mulero-Algarin, 866 F.3d 8

Background

Mulero‑Algárin was convicted in 2002 of possession with intent to distribute ~1,576 kg of cocaine; sentenced to 135 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release.
Supervised release began September 2011; in January 2014 Mulero‑Algárin unsuccessfully moved for early termination.
In December 2014 he was arrested on a new maritime drug offense (≈30 kg cocaine); that case was prosecuted separately and assigned to a different judge.
In October 2015 Mulero‑Algárin pled guilty in the new case and received the 120‑month mandatory minimum (plus 5 years supervised release).
A revocation proceeding (before the original sentencing judge, Judge Cerezo) found Mulero‑Algárin violated supervised release; Judge Cerezo imposed a 36‑month revocation sentence to run consecutively to the 120‑month sentence.
On appeal Mulero‑Algárin challenged only the decision to make the revocation sentence consecutive (procedural and substantive claims); the First Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Mulero‑Algárin's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether prior imprisonment counts toward the § 3583(e)(3) aggregate reimprisonment cap	The 135‑month original prison term should be credited toward the 5‑year cap so the revocation sentence must be nominal/concurrent	Only prior terms of reimprisonment imposed upon revocation count toward the § 3583(e)(3) cap; original sentence is not reimprisonment	Rejected — original prison term is not a prior revocation term; 36 months is within the 5‑year cap
Whether time spent on supervised release must be credited against a revocation term	The ~39 months on supervised release should be deducted from the 36‑month revocation term	Statute explicitly bars crediting time served on postrelease supervision against reimprisonment	Rejected — § 3583(e)(3) forbids credit for time previously served on supervised release
Whether the district court failed to consider Mulero‑Algárin’s cooperation in the new case	The court ignored or failed to properly credit his cooperation (naming associates; offer to wear a wire)	The court considered cooperation and recognized it had already been credited in the new case; offers unfulfilled were not mitigating	Rejected — court considered cooperation and reasonably discounted unperformed promises; substantial weight given to deterrence
Whether a consecutive revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable	Mulero‑Algárin argued cumulative punishment, age, and cooperation warranted concurrent sentence	Sentencing judge reasonably weighed recidivism risk and deterrence and exercised discretion to impose consecutive term	Rejected — no abuse of discretion; consecutive 36 months justified to deter further recidivism

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Tapia‑Escalera, 356 F.3d 181 (1st Cir.) (interpretation of § 3583(e)(3) re: counting prior revocation terms)
United States v. Butler‑Acevedo, 656 F.3d 97 (1st Cir.) (standard: abuse of discretion review of revocation sentence)
United States v. Cortés‑Medina, 819 F.3d 566 (1st Cir.) (district court’s consideration of sentencing arguments and allocation of weight)
United States v. Hernández‑Ferrer, 599 F.3d 63 (1st Cir.) (broad discretion in fashioning revocation sentences under § 3583(e)(3))
United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir.) (deference to sentencing court’s weighing of factors)