United States v. Ouellette, 985 F.3d 107

On November 2, 2018 police responded to a domestic disturbance at Damian Ouellette’s home; officers learned he had assaulted his wife and that a child had found a loaded firearm Ouellette had been hiding.
Ouellette was a convicted felon on probation; he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)).
Probation initially set a base offense level (BOL) of 14, but the Government sought a BOL of 20 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), arguing Ouellette’s prior armed robbery was a “crime of violence.”
The district court agreed with the Government in a written opinion, raising the advisory Guidelines range from 41–51 months to 77–96 months; after adjustments the court treated the total offense level as 21.
The court varied below the Guidelines and sentenced Ouellette to 72 months, stating repeatedly that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of which Guidelines range applied (i.e., the sentence was “untethered” from the Guidelines calculation).
Ouellette appealed, arguing the court misapplied the Guidelines by treating his prior robbery as a crime of violence; the Government argued any error was harmless and that no error occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ouellette’s prior state armed robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" for the Sentencing Guidelines (BOL calculation)	Gov: Prior robbery is a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) and supports BOL 20	Ouellette: The prior conviction does not qualify as a crime of violence; BOL should be 14	Court did not need to resolve error on the merits; any error in BOL calculation was harmless because the district court expressly would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the Guidelines calculation
Whether an erroneous Guidelines calculation requires remand (harmless-error analysis)	Gov: Any Guidelines error is harmless because the district court made clear it untethered its sentence from the Guidelines	Ouellette: Even if the court varied, using BOL 20 was an improper baseline for that variance	Held harmless: because the district court said it would have imposed the identical sentence regardless of the Guidelines, the miscalculation (if any) did not prejudice Ouellette
Whether the 72-month sentence is substantively reasonable	Gov: Sentence is reasonable given defendant’s criminal history and domestic-violence context	Ouellette: Did not press a substantive-reasonableness objection at sentencing or on appeal	Court: The sentence is substantively reasonable — the court provided a plausible rationale (recidivism, probation violations, domestic violence), and the result is defensible

Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (an incorrect Guidelines calculation can be harmless under certain circumstances)
Ortiz-Álvarez v. United States, 921 F.3d 313 (1st Cir. 2019) (district court may "untether" sentence from competing Guidelines calculations; shows harmlessness when court would impose same sentence)
Hudson v. United States, 823 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2016) (same principle: clear indication the court intended to untether its sentence from Guidelines errors)
Tavares v. United States, 705 F.3d 4 (1st Cir. 2013) (error is harmless if it did not affect the sentence selection)
Gomera-Rodríguez v. United States, 952 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2020) (standards for substantive reasonableness: plausible rationale and defensible result)
Benoit v. United States, 975 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2020) (when defendant pleads guilty, facts from undisputed PSR and sentencing transcript are used on appeal)
Ayala-Vazquez v. United States, 751 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) (catalogue of significant procedural sentencing errors to avoid)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (courts must consider § 3553(a) factors and may deviate from Guidelines)