United States v. Pagan-Walker
877 F.3d 415
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Pagán-Walker pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm after police found a .40-caliber Glock modified to fire automatically, three regular magazines (13 rounds each), a high-capacity magazine loaded with 22 rounds, a second high-capacity 20-round magazine, and 72 rounds total.
- He was indicted also for possession of a machine gun but pleaded only to § 922(g)(1) possession; plea agreement contemplated government recommendation at guideline midpoint and allowed Pagán to seek the low end.
- Probation and the parties calculated a Total Offense Level of 17, yielding a guidelines range of 30–37 months.
- The district court varied upward and imposed a 60-month sentence; Pagán appealed both procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
- The appeal waiver in Pagán’s plea agreement was treated as inapplicable because the waiver conditioned on the parties’ recommended sentencing outcome (per Cortés‑Medina).
- The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting Pagán’s challenges to the absence (or nondocketing) of a written reasons form, alleged failure to consider § 3553(a) factors, purported improper emphasis on general deterrence, and that the upward variance was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Pagán's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to provide/docket written statement of reasons | District court erred by not docketing the written statement, denying reviewability | Oral explanation matched the written reasons; nondocketing harmless because the sentence was not imposed as a result of the error | No remand; failure to docket was harmless given the comprehensive oral reasons (affirmed) |
| Failure to consider § 3553(a) and defendant’s history/characteristics | Court ignored mitigating facts (work history, background) and didn’t properly weigh § 3553(a) factors | Court considered and rejected mitigating facts after discussion; did not neglect § 3553(a) | No procedural error; court explicitly considered and weighed factors (affirmed) |
| Improper reliance on general deterrence and speculation on motive | Court overemphasized general deterrence and impermissibly speculated about Pagán’s intent to commit more serious crime | General deterrence is a permissible § 3553(a) factor; court remained attentive to case-specific facts and rejection of defendant’s benign motive was reasonable | No abuse: deterrence is permissible and court’s inference about possible criminal motive was not clearly erroneous (affirmed) |
| Substantive reasonableness of 60-month upward variance | Sentence is excessive; nothing distinguishes this case from ordinary guideline cases so variance unsupported | Specific facts (modified automatic-capable gun, multiple high-capacity mags, 72 rounds, "mini-arsenal") justified distinguishing from mine-run cases | No abuse of discretion: upward variance supported by case-specific facts and reasonable sentencing judgment (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cortés-Medina, 819 F.3d 566 (1st Cir. 2016) (plea‑waiver limits when tied to parties’ sentencing recommendations)
- United States v. Millán-Isaac, 749 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2014) (importance of written statement of reasons and consequences of nondocketing)
- United States v. Vázquez-Martínez, 812 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2016) (harmlessness analysis for failure to file a written statement of reasons)
- United States v. Pedroza-Orengo, 817 F.3d 829 (1st Cir. 2016) (upholding variance where district court gave comprehensive explanations)
- United States v. Del Valle-Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 171 (1st Cir. 2014) (variance supported when case facts distinguish it from the mine-run of guideline cases)