United States v. Portillo, 981 F.3d 181

In April 2017, Josue Portillo (age 15) as an MS-13 member participated in execution‑style murders of four alleged rival gang members in a Central Islip park; he wielded a machete and obtained gang leader approval.
The Government moved to transfer him to adult status; the District Court granted the transfer. Portillo waived indictment and pled guilty to a substantive RICO count (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)) based on the four murders.
The Presentence Report calculated a Guidelines life range and recommended life; the Government sought 60 years; the District Judge (Bianco) exercised post‑Booker discretion and imposed a 55‑year sentence with an extensive oral and written explanation.
On appeal Portillo argued (1) Miller v. Alabama should be extended to require consideration of Miller factors when imposing very long non‑LWOP juvenile sentences, and (2) the 55‑year sentence is substantively unreasonable under Booker review.
The Second Circuit affirmed, assuming arguendo the Miller factors applied, finding the district court considered them and that the 55‑year term was not an abuse of discretion; the opinion also observed the practical effects of the abolition of federal parole.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Miller v. Alabama requires consideration of its juvenile‑specific factors when imposing an extremely long non‑LWOP sentence on a juvenile	Portillo: Miller’s factors must be applied when sentencing juveniles to very long terms that are effectively life without parole	Govt: Miller governs mandatory LWOP; need not be extended to discretionary long sentences (or, at least, district court’s consideration was sufficient)	Court assumed Miller factors applied, found Judge Bianco considered them, and declined to extend Miller beyond that result — no error
Whether the 55‑year sentence is substantively unreasonable under Booker and appellate reasonableness review	Portillo: 55 years for a 15‑year‑old is unreasonably severe given youth and rehabilitation prospects	Govt: Sentence was within district court’s broad post‑Booker discretion given heinous facts and defendant’s role	Affirmed: under deferential abuse‑of‑discretion standard, sentence not substantively unreasonable
Significance of abolition of federal parole to juvenile long sentences	Portillo: Lack of parole makes long sentences effectively irrevocable and more punitive for juveniles	Govt: Sentencing statutes control; parole repealed by Sentencing Reform Act	Court: Observed abolition of parole makes 55 years mean decades in custody and lamented policy effect, but held it does not render the sentence unlawful

Miller v. Alabama, [citation="567 U.S. 460"] (mandatory life without parole for those under 18 violates Eighth Amendment because it precludes consideration of youth‑related factors)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, [citation="136 S. Ct. 718"] (Miller’s rule applies retroactively; sentencing must account for children’s capacity for change)
United States v. Booker, [citation="543 U.S. 220"] (Federal Guidelines are advisory; appellate review uses reasonableness standard)
United States v. Cavera, [citation="550 F.3d 180"] (Second Circuit en banc: deferential abuse‑of‑discretion review for substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Broxmeyer, [citation="699 F.3d 265"] (Second Circuit: particularly deferential review of substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Rigas, [citation="583 F.3d 108"] (Second Circuit: substantive unreasonableness analogous to "manifest injustice")
United States v. Juvenile Male, [citation="327 F. Supp. 3d 573"] (E.D.N.Y. transfer‑to‑adult decision referenced in the record)