United States v. Quinones-Otero, 869 F.3d 49

Quiñones-Otero pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
District court sentenced him to 27 months in prison, at the top end of the Guidelines range, with three years of supervised release and a six-month curfew 6:00 PM–6:00 AM enforced by electronic monitoring.
Police observed a firearm on Quiñones-Otero at 6:00 AM; he discarded the gun during a pursuit and was later arrested.
During interrogation, Quiñones-Otero admitted a prior Puerto Rico copyright-law conviction; records later confirmed a two-year prior imprisonment.
The court imposed a six-month curfew during non-working hours and required 24-hour electronic monitoring, noting these conditions were reasonably related to the offense and sentencing factors.
Quiñones-Otero appealed, challenging the curfew/electronic monitoring and asserting the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether curfew and electronic monitoring are reasonable conditions	Quiñones-Otero argued the electronic monitoring period and curfew were unreasonable and improperly imposed.	The government contends the curfew and monitoring are reasonably related to the offense, deterrence, and public protection, and necessary to ensure compliance.	Curfew upheld; electronic monitoring upheld as necessary to enforce curfew.
Whether the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable within the guidelines	Quiñones-Otero contends the sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable due to inadequate explanation of § 3553(a) factors and other flaws.	The district court properly followed the sentencing procedure and balancing of § 3553(a) factors within the Guidelines range.	No error; sentence within guidelines and reasonably explained in context.
Whether untranslated Spanish-language documents could be considered on appeal	Quiñones-Otero relied on Spanish-language documents attached to his sentencing memorandum.	Jones Act requires English in proceedings; untranslated Spanish documents could not be considered.	Spanish documents not considered; English requirement respected.

United States v. Rivera-López, 736 F.3d 633 (1st Cir. 2013) (conditions of release must be reasonably related to offense or history and not more restrictive than necessary)
United States v. Fey, 834 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016) (district court need not spell out every factor as long as reasoning can be inferred from the record)
United States v. Pabon, 819 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2016) (affirming consideration of record evidence in evaluating reasons for special conditions)
United States v. Laureano-Pérez, 797 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2015) (defendant-advocated factors need not be enumerated individually when district court states it considered all factors)
United States v. Serunjogi, 767 F.3d 132 (1st Cir. 2014) (procedural roadmap for sentencing observed when within-guidelines)
United States v. Dávila– González, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2010) (district court’s consideration of relevant factors in context of § 3553(a))
Dávila v. Corporación De Puerto Rico Para La Difusión Pública, 498 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2007) (language requirements impact admissibility of pleadings)
United States v. Dixon, 449 F.3d 194 (1st Cir. 2006) (district court need not address each § 3553(a) factor individually)
United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (within-guidelines sentence still requires consideration of § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Denson, 689 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2012) (crediting district court's broad consideration of history and characteristics)