United States v. Pedroza-Orengo
817 F.3d 829
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- In April 2014 Pedroza was observed brandishing a Glock pistol; police recovered the gun (15 rounds) and an extra high-capacity magazine (21 rounds). He was on supervised release for a prior machine-gun conviction.
- A grand jury charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in which the parties recommended the low end of the Guidelines but preserved the court’s sentencing discretion.
- The PSR calculated an adjusted offense level of 17 and Criminal History Category III, producing a Guidelines range of 30–37 months.
- Defense submitted neuropsychological evidence (written report placing IQ ~60 and describing impulsivity and impaired judgment); defense asked late to present live expert testimony at sentencing.
- The district court acknowledged Pedroza’s mental limitations but found they undercut mitigation by suggesting greater public-danger risk; citing dangerous brandishing, gun type, rapid recidivism, lenient prior sentence, and high local gun-crime incidence, the court imposed an upward variance to 60 months (statutory maximum 120 months).
- Pedroza moved for reconsideration; denied. He appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Pedroza's Argument | Government's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court failed to adequately explain and justify an upward variance from the Guidelines | District court did not provide sufficient individualized justification for a 60‑month sentence | Court provided reasons (dangerous conduct, gun type, fast recidivism, lenient prior sentence, local gun-crime problem) supporting the variance | Affirmed: court adequately explained its reasons and linked them to case-specific facts (no procedural error) |
| Whether the court failed to consider mitigating evidence of Pedroza’s mental and cognitive impairments | Court refused to consider or hear late proffered live testimony and ignored § 3553(a)(1) factors | Court considered the written neuropsychological report, reasonably declined late live testimony, and weighed the evidence (declining to treat it as mitigating) | Affirmed: court considered the mental-health evidence and permissibly declined to treat it as mitigating; no prejudice from declining late live testimony |
| Whether the court impermissibly used Pedroza’s mental impairment as aggravating evidence | Pedroza argued the court used his impairment to justify a longer sentence than otherwise would be imposed | Government: court did not base the upward variance on the impairment but on crime-specific danger and recidivism | Affirmed: record shows the court declined to rely on the impairment either way and based the variance on other factors |
| Whether failure to file a written Statement of Reasons (Form) requires vacatur | Pedroza asserted statutory duty under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) was violated | Government said form was filed; if not, the omission was harmless given the comprehensive oral explanation | Affirmed: any omission was harmless because the oral explanation demonstrates the same reasons the written form would have contained |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (court must explain deviations from Guidelines)
- Turbides-Leonardo v. United States, 468 F.3d 34 (district court need not provide lengthy detail but should identify main factors)
- Flores-Machicote v. United States, 706 F.3d 16 (community crime incidence may inform need for deterrence)
- Zapete-Garcia v. United States, 447 F.3d 57 (court must explain how a case differs from ordinary Guidelines situations)
- Vázquez-Martínez v. United States, 812 F.3d 18 (harmlessness standard for failure to file written statement of reasons)
- Paulino-Guzman v. United States, 807 F.3d 447 (wide range of reasonable sentences up to statutory maximum)