United States v. Perez-Carrera
686 F. App'x 15
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Isaías Pérez‑Carrera pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) after police found a loaded gun in his shoulder pack.
- PSR calculated total offense level 17 (base 20, −3 for acceptance) and criminal history category III (5 points), producing a Guidelines range of 30–37 months.
- At sentencing Pérez presented family and medical testimony about his role caring for a severely disabled son and family business.
- The government initially requested 120 months, later reduced to 84 months; the district court warned it was considering an upward variance and continued the hearing.
- The district court imposed an upward variance to 50 months (above the 30–37 range), citing the nature of Pérez’s prior felony, similarity between offenses, and short interval (≈22 months) between release and reoffense.
- Pérez appealed, arguing procedural error (double‑counting guideline factors) and substantive unreasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Pérez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness — did the court improperly double‑count guideline factors when imposing an upward variance? | District court may consider prior convictions and recidivism to justify variance; urged higher sentence. | Court double‑counted prior felony and the fact offense occurred on supervised release because both were already reflected in Guidelines. | Rejected: no plain error. Court relied on nature/similarity of prior offense and short time to recidivism—factors beyond mere criminal history points. |
| Procedural review standard | Not contested; court applied sentencing procedures and § 3553(a) factors. | Argues error not preserved; reviewed for plain error. | Court applied plain‑error standard and found no obvious mistake. |
| Substantive reasonableness — was 50 months excessive? | Requested much higher (initially 120, later 84) based on public safety and recidivism. | 50 months substantively unreasonable given family/medical mitigation and Guidelines range. | Affirmed: within the "universe of reasonable sentences." District court reasonably weighed factors and did not abuse discretion. |
| Factual findings (e.g., wife doing most caregiving) | Relied on record in weighing deterrence/need for rehabilitation. | Contends some factual findings overlooked or wrong, warranting lower sentence. | Rejected: factual findings not obviously erroneous; weighing of factors is within sentencing court's broad discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nieves–Mercado v. United States, 847 F.3d 37 (1st Cir.) (explains scope of permissible reliance on the nature of prior convictions at sentencing)
- Duarte v. United States, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir.) (plain‑error review framework)
- Trinidad‑Acosta v. United States, 773 F.3d 298 (1st Cir.) (abuse of discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)
- Del Valle‑Rodríguez v. United States, 761 F.3d 171 (1st Cir.) (focus on sentence length in totality of circumstances)
- Narváez‑Soto v. United States, 773 F.3d 282 (1st Cir.) (‘plausible rationale and defensible result’ standard)
- Martin v. United States, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.) (sentencing review principles)
- Rivera‑González v. United States, 776 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (deference to district court's balancing of § 3553(a) factors)