United States v. Perez
819 F.3d 541
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Englis Pérez, a Dominican national, was apprehended on March 4, 2014 aboard a 30‑foot speedboat intercepted off Puerto Rico carrying 38 bales (~1,056 kg) of cocaine; only Pérez and Gregorio Rodríguez were aboard.
- A federal grand jury returned a six‑count indictment charging importation, possession with intent to distribute, conspiracy, and related vessel offenses; Pérez entered a straight guilty plea to all counts.
- The district court used the November 2014 Guidelines, calculated a GSR of 135–168 months, and sentenced Pérez to 135 months (the bottom of the range) on January 27, 2015.
- Pérez appealed, raising four sentencing challenges: (1) entitlement to a mitigating‑role adjustment; (2) failure of the court to adequately explain the sentence; (3) national disparity under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6); and (4) substantive unreasonableness of the sentence.
- The court of appeals reviewed procedural claims for clear error/de novo as appropriate and substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion, and affirmed the sentence in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pérez) | Defendant's Argument (Government/district court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mitigating‑role reduction under USSG §3B1.2(b) | Pérez said he was a minor (or minimally culpable) participant and thus entitled to a downward adjustment. | District court found Pérez and Rodríguez were equally culpable based on travel, shared work, and Pérez’s mechanical skills; burden on defendant to prove adjustment. | Denied — district court’s finding of equal culpability was not clearly erroneous. |
| Failure to explain sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3553(c) | Pérez claimed the court failed to state reasons for imposing 135 months. | Court explained it relied on the Guidelines, considered §3553 factors, offense nature, personal history, deterrence, public protection, and chose lower end of range. | Denied — explanation sufficient (lightened burden for within‑range sentence). |
| National sentencing disparity (§3553(a)(6)) | Pérez argued his sentence was disproportionate compared to similar defendants nationwide. | No factual development or national comparison presented to the sentencing court; appellant’s claim undeveloped on appeal. | Denied — no plain error; claim waived by lack of factual showing and development. |
| Substantive reasonableness of within‑Guidelines sentence | Pérez argued the 135‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable, citing disparity with Rodríguez’s later lighter sentence. | A within‑Guidelines sentence supported by plausible rationale (large quantity, role, skills); Rodríguez’s later 48‑month sentence reflected different plea/sentencing circumstances. | Denied — sentence was defensible and reflected a plausible sentencing rationale. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (standard for reviewing sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (abuse of discretion review in sentencing appeals)
- United States v. Vargas, 560 F.3d 45 (burden to prove mitigating role)
- United States v. Torres‑Landrúa, 783 F.3d 58 (test for minor participant)
- United States v. Santos, 357 F.3d 136 (role‑in‑offense principles)
- United States v. Ruiz‑Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (substantive‑reasonableness framework; within‑range sentences)
- United States v. Flores‑Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (factfinding vs. guideline interpretation review)
- United States v. Meléndez‑Rivera, 782 F.3d 26 (fact‑specific role determinations)
- United States v. Rosa‑Carino, 615 F.3d 75 (role‑in‑offense analysis)
- United States v. Bravo, 489 F.3d 1 (equal‑participant findings)
- United States v. Ruiz, 905 F.2d 499 (deference to district court among plausible alternatives)
- United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (plain‑error standard)
- United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (issues waived if undeveloped)
- United States v. Vega‑Salgado, 769 F.3d 100 (within‑range sentence and appellate deference)
- United States v. Zakharov, 468 F.3d 1171 (no mitigating role where small crew transported large load)
- United States v. Coneo‑Guerrero, 148 F.3d 44 (similar principle on role adjustments)
- Cahoon v. Shelton, 647 F.3d 18 (must seek relief in trial court before appealing)
- Beaulieu v. U.S. IRS, 865 F.2d 1351 (same principle on preservation)