United States v. Ramirez-Romero, 982 F.3d 35

Ramírez-Romero was arrested in Puerto Rico after police found a loaded Glock modified to fire automatically (a machinegun), two other pistols, and two high-capacity magazines in the car he occupied.
He pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a machinegun, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o).
The parties’ plea agreement contained a proposed Guidelines calculation, but the PSR used additional uncharged conduct (his drug use and the two other firearms) to raise his total offense level.
Ramírez-Romero objected that the PSR improperly relied on conduct not charged in the indictment and contended the district court erred in assessing relevant conduct and in relying on an arrest lacking probable cause.
The district court found the PSR correct, applied relevant-conduct adjustments (based on his admissions and a positive urine test and the presence of other firearms), calculated a GSR of 37–46 months, but imposed a 60-month sentence after weighing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
The First Circuit affirmed the sentence but remanded solely to allow defense counsel access to the written Statement of Reasons (SOR).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court may use uncharged conduct (drug use, other guns) as "relevant conduct" in Guidelines calculation	Ramírez-Romero: PSR relied on facts not charged; cannot raise GSR on uncharged conduct	Government: U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 allows relevant conduct proven by a preponderance; admissions and test support findings	Court: Allowed use of relevant conduct; findings supported by preponderance (admissions, urine test, undisputed firearms)
Whether the court improperly relied on an arrest lacking probable cause in sentencing	Ramírez-Romero: Arrest without probable cause should not influence sentencing	Government: Mentioning an arrest is not abuse if not relied on as proven conduct; district court noted lack of probable cause	Court: No abuse; arrest mentioned only in recitation and court noted no probable cause; harmless in § 3553(a) analysis
Whether denial of access to the written Statement of Reasons (SOR) requires vacatur	Ramírez-Romero: Defense counsel was denied the SOR and was prejudiced	Government: Lack of docketed/completed SOR does not mandate vacatur absent prejudice; oral explanation was adequate	Court: Affirmed sentence but remanded to provide defense counsel the SOR; oral explanation was adequate but SOR should be made available per policy

United States v. González, 857 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2017) (preponderance standard for proving relevant conduct under the Guidelines)
United States v. Marrero-Pérez, 914 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2019) (arrests without convictions should not receive sentencing weight absent independent proof)
United States v. Díaz-Lugo, 963 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2020) (reciting arrest record does not necessarily constitute abuse of discretion)
United States v. Morales-Negrón, 974 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2020) (failure to docket SOR does not require vacatur absent showing of prejudice; SOR should be available to defense counsel)
United States v. Fields, 858 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2017) (same principle on SOR and prejudice)
United States v. Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2006) (sentencing explanations under § 3553(c) need not be lengthy or detailed)