888 F.3d 557
1st Cir.2018Background
- Defendant William Pinet-Fuentes pleaded guilty to illegal possession of a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) after agents found a loaded, fully automatic Glock with an extended magazine under the front passenger seat of a car where he was sitting.
- During a pat-down Pinet had two magazines in his pocket and admitted the weapon had been in his lap and was placed under the seat as agents approached.
- Presentence report recommended a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) on the ground the firearm was stolen, and recommended six months of electronic monitoring and a curfew as conditions of supervised release.
- At sentencing the district court adopted the stolen-weapon enhancement, imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 30 months, and ordered six months of electronic monitoring and curfew as part of supervised release.
- Pinet appealed, contesting (1) the stolen-weapon enhancement, (2) the reasonableness of the 30-month sentence (arguing the judge relied on an inference tying him to a nearby drug transaction), and (3) the supervised-release conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stolen-weapon enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) | Government: owner's police report reliably shows the gun was stolen, supporting enhancement by preponderance | Pinet: owner’s account unreliable; Pinet said he bought gun earlier | Court upheld enhancement; credited owner's unimpeached statement over defendant's self-serving claim (reliable hearsay OK in sentencing) |
| Sentence reasonableness (alleged drug-transaction involvement) | Government suggested evidence warranted a preponderance finding of Pinet’s involvement | Pinet: court improperly relied on inference that he was part of a drug transaction to increase sentence | Court found district judge accepted defense counsel’s representation that the allegation would not be considered; sentence affirmed as within guidelines |
| Supervised-release conditions (6 months electronic monitoring and curfew) | Government: conditions reasonably tailored to public safety and supervision needs | Pinet: conditions unduly restrictive and burdensome | Court upheld conditions as within wide district-court discretion and inferable from record; no abuse of discretion |
| Standard of proof and use of hearsay at sentencing | Government: sentencing facts may be established by preponderance and reliable hearsay | Pinet: contended owner’s out-of-court statement insufficient | Court reiterated sentencing standard: preponderance; reliable hearsay permissible and was credited |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rodriguez, 336 F.3d 67 (1st Cir.) (reliable hearsay may be considered at sentencing)
- United States v. Colón de Jesús, 831 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2016) (a supervised-release condition may be upheld if its basis can be inferred from the record)
- United States v. Garrasteguy, 559 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2009) (deference to sentencing judge’s familiarity with defendant when reviewing conditions)
- United States v. Smith, 436 F.3d 307 (1st Cir. 2006) (broad district-court discretion in supervised-release conditions where public safety implicated)
- United States v. Perazza-Mercado, 553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. York, 357 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2004) (review deferential to trial judge on supervised-release conditions)