United States v. Ortiz-Torres
873 F.3d 346
1st Cir.2017Background
- Ortiz and co-conspirators planned to rob two Puerto Rico Dept. of Natural Resources officers to steal their firearms; during the attempt Ortiz shot one guard; return fire killed a second guard; Ortiz then fatally shot the wounded guard on the ground.
- Ortiz pleaded guilty to brandishing and discharging firearms during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and (j).
- Plea agreement provided a three-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 and calculated a joint Guidelines sentencing range (GSR) of 292–365 months, but preserved both parties’ right to argue for a different sentence; the government reserved the right to seek above-range punishment.
- At sentencing the government sought at least 500 months, citing lack of remorse among other factors; the district court nonetheless applied the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction but imposed a 560-month upward variance.
- Ortiz appealed, arguing (1) the government breached the plea agreement by arguing he had not accepted responsibility, and (2) his sentence was substantively unreasonable and unduly disparate compared to a co-defendant’s 380-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Ortiz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government breached the plea agreement by arguing Ortiz lacked remorse/accepted responsibility | Government: argued lack of remorse to justify upward variance but did not seek to rescind acceptance credit | Ortiz: contends argument undermined his §3E1.1 credit and breached the plea deal | No breach; prosecutor’s remarks about remorse were a permissible basis for variance and the court still found clear acceptance and applied the downward adjustment |
| Whether referencing Ortiz’s suppression motion breached plea | Government: did not link suppression motion to acceptance credit | Ortiz: asserted mention of suppression motion undermined acceptance credit | No breach; prosecutor did not imply suppression affected acceptance credit |
| Whether Ortiz’s 560-month sentence is substantively unreasonable compared to co-defendant’s 380 months | Government: argued higher sentence justified by greater culpability and conduct | Ortiz: argued his sentence was unduly disparate relative to co-defendant | Affirms sentence; district court reasonably relied on material differences, especially Ortiz’s greater culpability in killing both victims and shooting an incapacitated guard |
| Whether defendant is entitled to a lighter sentence because co-defendant received less | Government: sentencing disparities can be justified by material differences such as culpability | Ortiz: sought parity based on co-defendant’s lesser sentence | Not entitled to equal sentence; sentencing court has broad discretion and may consider relative culpability |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Almonte-Núñez, 771 F.3d 84 (1st Cir. 2014) (standard of de novo review for plea-breach questions)
- United States v. Santiago-González, 825 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2016) (lack of remorse is a permissible basis for an upward variance despite acceptance credit)
- United States v. Cruzado-Laureano, 527 F.3d 231 (1st Cir. 2008) (same—remorse relevant to variance)
- United States v. Reverol-Rivera, 778 F.3d 363 (1st Cir. 2015) (review of substantive reasonableness of sentence and deference to district court discretion)
- United States v. Dávila-González, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2010) (defendant not entitled to lighter sentence solely because a co-defendant received one)
- United States v. Reyes-Santiago, 804 F.3d 453 (1st Cir. 2015) (material differences among co-defendants can justify sentencing disparities)
- United States v. Rivera-Maldonado, 194 F.3d 224 (1st Cir. 1999) (relative culpability is a proper factor to justify differing sentences)