United States v. Ortiz-Perez, 30 F.4th 107

Background

In April–May 2019, then-18-year-old Jean Paul Ortiz-Pérez committed two armed carjackings, pointing a firearm at two victims and driving away in their cars; he was arrested about a week later.
A federal grand jury indicted him on four counts (two carjackings and two counts of brandishing a firearm); plea agreement reduced one brandishing count to unlawful possession under § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and dismissed the other.
Ortiz-Pérez pled guilty to two carjacking counts and the revised firearm-possession count; the PSI recommended 70–87 months total for counts 1 & 3 and the 60-month statutory minimum (to run consecutively) for count 2.
Defense urged a lower sentence based on youth, poor upbringing, and mental-health needs; the government sought a higher aggregate term citing prior contacts and the seriousness of repeated gun use.
The district court adopted guideline calculations, imposed concurrent 78-month sentences on counts 1 & 3 and a consecutive 72-month sentence on count 2 (aggregate 150 months, a 12-month upward variance on count 2), and dismissed the remaining count.
Ortiz-Pérez appealed, arguing procedural error (including failure to address youth/mental-health mitigation and inadequate explanation) and substantive unreasonableness; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court improperly "double-counted" guideline factors without explanation	Waived — raised first in reply; cannot be considered	Court relied on factors twice and failed to justify extra weight	Waived (argument abandoned)
Whether the court failed to address youth-related mitigation adequately	Court considered age and arguments; not required to address every argument explicitly	Court did not explicitly address youth-related mitigation at sentencing	No abuse of discretion; court heard and considered youth arguments and mentioned age
Whether the court failed to adequately consider mental-health treatment needs	Court noted prior treatment, provided supervised-release treatment condition, and reasonably weighed factors	Court neglected or undervalued mental-health needs in sentencing	No abuse of discretion; record showed awareness and permissive weighing by court
Whether the explanation and aggregate 150-month sentence were inadequate or substantively unreasonable (including the 12-month upward variance on count 2)	Sentence is supported by record: repeated brandishing, threat to life, and within broad range of reasonable outcomes; explanation can be inferred	Sentence procedurally flawed and substantively excessive given mitigation (youth, rehab potential)	Affirmed: explanation adequate by fair inference; concurrent within-range terms reasonable; upward variance on count 2 justified by repeated firearm brandishing and threats to life; aggregate sentence defensible

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Vargas, 560 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2009) (sources for facts in guilty-plea sentencing appeals)
United States v. López, 957 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2020) (arguments omitted from opening brief are abandoned)
United States v. Díaz-Lugo, 963 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2020) (abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing where factors were raised below)
United States v. Dixon, 449 F.3d 194 (1st Cir. 2006) (no requirement to address every § 3553(a) factor in rote fashion)
United States v. Rivera-Morales, 961 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020) (deference to district court sentencing judgments)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review framework for sentencing)
United States v. Pelletier, 469 F.3d 194 (1st Cir. 2006) (heavy burden to show a within-guidelines sentence is unreasonable)
United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (district court may assign differing weight to mitigating factors)
United States v. Montero-Montero, 817 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2016) (explanation required for variant sentences may be explicit or by fair inference)
United States v. Padilla-Galarza, 990 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2021) (analyzing aggregate sentence by its constituent parts)