United States v. Mulero-Diaz, 812 F.3d 92

Mulero pleaded guilty in 2009 to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute narcotics; sentenced to 70 months' imprisonment and 8 years supervised release.
Supervised-release conditions included no new crimes, no firearms/ammunition, and reporting arrests to probation within 72 hours.
While on supervision, Mulero was arrested for DUI and driving without a license/registration and failed to report these arrests to his probation officer.
The government presented testimony that Mulero committed domestic violence, possessed a loaded .40 caliber pistol (one round found on him), and that a victim (Figueroa) and a neighbor corroborated threats, gasoline-spilling, and aggressive conduct.
The District Court found sufficient evidence of Grade A violations (weapon possession and domestic violence) but classified the violation as Grade C and revoked supervised release, imposing a 3-year prison term (above the Guidelines range).
Mulero appealed, arguing (1) improper admission of hearsay without Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) balancing, (2) improper revocation based on unproven conduct, and (3) substantive and procedural unreasonableness of the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Mulero)	Held
Admission of hearsay at revocation hearing	Hearsay from officer and probation officer was reliable and corroborated; admissible for revocation purposes	District Court failed to perform Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) balancing; Mulero was denied limited confrontation rights	Mulero forfeited the specific Rule 32 argument; plain-error review fails because Mulero did not show a reasonable probability the result would differ
Sufficiency for revocation	Evidence (officer, PO, victim, neighbor) supported finding of domestic violence and weapon possession (Grade A conduct)	District Court relied on conduct it did not properly find occurred	No abuse of discretion; court credited testimony and had adequate basis to revoke supervised release
Procedural reasonableness of sentence	District Court considered the nature of violations and need for deterrence	Sentence premised on hearsay error and improper classification; variance excessive	Procedural challenge fails; prior hearsay argument insufficiently preserved and developed
Substantive reasonableness / variance size	Court provided individualized assessment and rationale for upward variance given threats, violence, and weapon possession	3-year sentence is substantively unreasonable and exceeds guidelines by a large margin	Substantively reasonable: plausible sentencing rationale and defensible result; variance justified by facts

United States v. Rondeau, 430 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2005) (courts may weigh hearsay reliability against government reasons for nonproduction in revocation contexts)
United States v. Shoup, 476 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2007) (unpreserved hearsay claims in revocation proceedings reviewed for plain error)
United States v. Ortiz-García, 665 F.3d 279 (1st Cir. 2011) (plain-error framework explained)
United States v. Rivera-Maldonado, 560 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2009) (plain-error standard elements summarized)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (defendant must show reasonable probability that error affected outcome for plain-error prejudice prong)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (standard for materiality affecting rights in criminal proceedings)
United States v. Whalen, 82 F.3d 528 (1st Cir. 1996) (standard of review for supervised-release revocation is abuse of discretion)
United States v. Battle, 637 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2011) (upward variance permissible with plausible sentencing rationale)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (appellate deference when district court gives adequate explanation for sentence)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts may impose variances after individualized assessment)
United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (issues perfunctorily argued are deemed waived)