United States v. Oquendo-Garcia
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5740
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Following a traffic stop and pursuit, police arrested Jan Carlo Oquendo-Garcia and Joshua Molina-Velazquez; searches recovered drugs, guns, ammunition, and cash.
- Both were charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 841) and possession of a rifle in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)); Oquendo-Garcia pled guilty to the § 924(c) count and the drug count was dismissed.
- § 924(c) carries a statutory mandatory minimum of 60 months; the Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4(b)) adopt that minimum as the guideline recommendation.
- The probation office recommended the 60-month guideline, but the district court imposed an 84-month sentence based on Oquendo-Garcia’s extensive weapons-related criminal history and cited 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- Oquendo-Garcia moved for reconsideration, was denied, and appealed asserting (1) a Rule 32(h) notice violation (court departed without notice) and (2) substantive unreasonableness and unjustified disparity with his co-defendant’s lower sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) by imposing an above-guidelines sentence without notice | Oquendo-Garcia: the court’s increase was an upward departure requiring Rule 32(h) notice, citing Application Note 2 to § 2K2.4 | Government: the court applied a § 3553(a) variance, not a departure, so Rule 32(h) did not apply | Court held variance, not departure; no Rule 32(h) error (and even if error, no plain‑error prejudice) |
| Whether the 84-month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Oquendo-Garcia: less culpable than co-defendant; constructive possession only; disparity with Molina-Velazquez’s lower sentence | Government: sentencing based on individualized criminal history and recidivism risk justified upward variance | Court held sentence substantively reasonable given defendant’s heavier weapons and criminal-history record; no abusive discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Politano, 522 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2008) (two-step reasonableness review for sentences)
- Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (2008) (distinguishing departures from variances for Rule 32(h))
- United States v. Vega-Santiago, 519 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (technical meaning of "departure" in Guidelines context)
- United States v. Aponte-Vellón, 754 F.3d 89 (1st Cir. 2014) (treating upward sentence over § 924(c) minimum as variance absent record indicating departure)
- United States v. Rivera-González, 776 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2015) (sentence-above-mandatory-minimum treated as upward variance)
- United States v. Battle, 637 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2011) (deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive review)
- United States v. Del Valle-Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 171 (1st Cir. 2014) (recidivism concerns can justify upward variance)
- United States v. Madera-Ortiz, 637 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011) (requirement that district court give a clear, cogent, coherent rationale)