United States v. Nelson
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12380
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Nelson and Williams robbed Hannoush Jewelers in Manchester, NH; $212,332 in merchandise taken.
- Nelson, recently released from an 18-year sentence for jewelry-store robbery conspiracy, participated in the theft.
- On Nov 4, 2011, Nelson and Williams robbed Kay Jewelers in Tilton, NH; total loss $208,297.96.
- May 11, 2012, Nelson was charged with two counts of interference with commerce by threats or violence under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); he pled guilty to both counts.
- PSR calculated Guidelines range 97–121 months; government requested upward variance to 210 months; district court imposed 168 months.
- District court stated it was varying upward because offenses were extremely violent and Nelson’s criminal history was underrepresented by CHC II; court did not impose the 210-month sentence but upheld 168 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was procedurally sound under § 3553(a) and Rule 32(h). | Nelson argues the court failed to explain adequately and misapplied § 4A1.3(a)(4). | Nelson contends the sentence was an improper departure or insufficiently explained variance. | Procedurally sound; any error harmless as court varied, not departed. |
| Whether the sentence was a valid variance rather than an upward departure. | Nelson asserts the court departed from the Guidelines by escalating CHC. | Court explicitly varied upward citing 3553(a) factors. | Sentence viewed as a variance, not a departure. |
| Whether the 168-month variance is substantively reasonable given the Guidelines range 97–121 months. | The 47-month increase is unjustified and excessive. | Record shows balancing of offense seriousness, deterrence, and public protection. | Reasonable under the totality of circumstances; within precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Trinidad-Acosta, 773 F.3d 298 (1st Cir. 2014) (discusses procedural and substantive review of variances and departures)
- United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (flexible, case-by-case approach; variance allowed after GSR calculation)
- United States v. Aponte-Vellón, 754 F.3d 89 (1st Cir. 2014) (distinguishes departure from variance; Rule 32(h) implications)
- United States v. Oquendo-Garcia, 783 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2015) (clarifies that explicit § 3553(a) invocation supports variance rather than departure)
- United States v. Del Valle-Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 171 (1st Cir. 2014) (upheld a variant sentence in similar context)
- United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (outlines factors for validating variance outside Guidelines)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reasonableness of variances outside Guidelines)