United States v. Murchison
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13539
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2014 Akylle Murchison pled guilty to: a conspiracy to distribute cocaine/cocaine base (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846) and possession with intent to distribute bk‑MDEA (a ‘‘bath salt’’) under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- The PSR included paragraphs (10 and 83) recounting a cooperating source's allegation that Murchison used straw purchasers to buy firearms to supply a Boston gang; the PSR noted those firearms were not tied to the drug offense.
- Murchison objected and asked the court to strike or mark those paragraphs; the district court refused to strike them but expressly stated it would not consider that information in imposing sentence.
- The Statement of Reasons (SOR) and judgment noted the court would not rely on the firearm references; the judge also recommended BOP allow Murchison to participate in the 500‑hour drug treatment program.
- Murchison was sentenced to concurrent terms of 108 months (a 43‑month downward variance from the calculated Guidelines range of 151–188 months) and appealed, arguing (1) Rule 32 violation by refusing to strike the PSR paragraphs (and potential prejudice from BOP use) and (2) the sentence was unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) by refusing to strike contested PSR paragraphs about firearms | Murchison: paragraphs 10 and 83 are disputed, prejudicial (BOP will use them), and should be stricken or annotated | Government/District Court: judge ruled on the dispute, left statements in PSR but said he would not rely on them and appended that determination to the record | Affirmed: court complied with Rule 32(i)(3)(B) by ruling on the dispute and noting it would not consider the matter in sentencing; no requirement to strike contested material |
| Whether inclusion of contested PSR material prejudices BOP classification and program eligibility, requiring deletion | Murchison: BOP will see the PSR and the firearm allegations may harm classification and access to treatment | Government/District Court: BOP receives all sentencing materials (PSR, judgment, SOR); the SOR stated the court did not rely on the firearm info and judge recommended treatment access | Affirmed: possible BOP review of PSR does not require striking material; SOR and judgment provided context to BOP and classification decisions rest with BOP |
| Whether the sentence (108 months) was procedurally reasonable | Murchison: judge failed to give adequate weight to mitigating factors (age, no priors, abuse history, mental health) | Government/District Court: judge calculated Guidelines, considered §3553(a) factors, acknowledged mitigation, imposed a significant downward variance | Affirmed: sentencing was procedurally sound—court considered factors and explained its decision |
| Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable | Murchison: 108 months is greater than necessary given mitigation and rehabilitation prospects | Government/District Court: sentence justified by Murchison’s leadership role, duration and seriousness of drug conduct and drug quantity | Affirmed: substantive reasonableness upheld—sentence lies within permissible range and was plausibly justified |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Acevedo, 824 F.3d 179 (1st Cir. 2016) (standard for de novo review of Rule 32 compliance)
- United States v. González‑Vélez, 587 F.3d 494 (1st Cir. 2009) (Rule 32 precedent cited for review standard)
- United States v. Melendez, 279 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2002) (a court may rule that a disputed PSR matter will not affect sentencing)
- United States v. Turner, 898 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1990) (discussing district court obligations under Rule 32)
- United States v. Hopkins, 824 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2016) (contested PSR material cannot be used unless proven, and courts need not strike disputed material if not relied upon)
- United States v. Beatty, 9 F.3d 686 (8th Cir. 1993) (Rule 32 does not mandate striking objected‑to PSR material)
- United States v. Santiago‑Rivera, 744 F.3d 229 (1st Cir. 2014) (weight accorded to §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Dávila‑González, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2010) (sentencing procedure principles)
- United States v. Ruiz‑Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir. 2015) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of sentencing weight complaints)
- United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (sentencing factor weighting is within court's discretion)
- United States v. Carrasco‑De‑Jesús, 589 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (district court must articulate a plausible rationale for sentence)
- United States v. Anonymous Defendant, 629 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2010) (acceptable range of sentencing outcomes)
- United States v. King, 741 F.3d 305 (1st Cir. 2014) (two‑step review: procedural then substantive reasonableness)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (framework for appellate review of sentencing)
- United States v. Flores‑Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for procedural review)
- United States v. Vargas, 560 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2009) (reliance on PSR and disposition hearing after guilty plea)
- Thye v. United States, 109 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 1997) (BOP discretion over inmate placement and program assignment)
- United States v. Bowers, 743 F.3d 1182 (8th Cir. 2014) (government must prove disputed PSR facts by preponderance if relied on at sentencing)