United States v. Pérez, 819 F.3d 541

Background

Englis Pérez, a Dominican national, pleaded guilty to six counts related to importing and distributing cocaine after being intercepted on a speedboat off Puerto Rico carrying ~1,056 kg of cocaine.
Only Pérez and Gregorio Rodríguez were aboard; both traveled to South America to conduct the voyage.
Pérez entered a straight guilty plea to all counts; the presentence guidelines used were the November 2014 edition.
The district court calculated a Guideline Sentencing Range (GSR) of 135–168 months and imposed a 135-month sentence (bottom of range).
Pérez appealed, advancing four challenges to his sentence: (1) entitlement to a mitigating-role reduction, (2) failure of the district court to explain the sentence, (3) national sentencing disparity under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), and (4) substantive unreasonableness of the sentence.

Issues

Issue	Pérez's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Mitigating role (USSG § 3B1.2(b))	Pérez argued he was a minor participant and deserved a two-level reduction.	District court found Pérez and Rodríguez equally culpable based on travel, shared work, and Pérez’s mechanical skill; no reduction warranted.	No clear error in district court’s factual finding of equal culpability; adjustment denied.
Failure to explain sentence (18 U.S.C. § 3553(c))	Pérez contended the court failed to state reasons for the 135-month sentence.	Court pointed to guideline calculations, §3553 factors, defendant’s history, offense nature, need for deterrence and protection, and chose a within-range sentence.	No plain error; court’s explanation was sufficient (lightened burden for within-GSR sentence).
National disparity (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6))	Pérez claimed his sentence was disproportionate to similarly situated defendants.	Pérez offered no developed factual comparison; claim not raised below (plain-error review), and record lacks foundation for disparity showing.	No plain error; argument undeveloped and waived.
Substantive reasonableness	Pérez argued the 135-month term was substantively unreasonable, noting Rodríguez later received a much lower sentence.	Court emphasized plausibility of sentencing rationale, within-GSR, quantity of drugs, and differences between co-defendant’s plea, charges, and circumstances.	Sentence upheld as substantively reasonable; within-GSR sentences are presumptively defensible and available record explained differences with Rodríguez.

Key Cases Cited

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (establishes abuse-of-discretion standard and deference for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.) (standard for reviewing sentencing claims)
United States v. Torres-Landrúa, 783 F.3d 58 (1st Cir.) (two-part test for mitigating-role adjustment)
United States v. Vargas, 560 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (burden to prove mitigating-role by preponderance)
United States v. Zakharov, 468 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir.) (co-participants in maritime drug voyages may be principals)
United States v. Ruiz-Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir.) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.) (undeveloped arguments deemed waived)