United States v. Ramos-Carreras, 59 F.4th 1

Background

In 2011 Ramos pled guilty to a federal drug conspiracy and received five years' imprisonment and eight years' supervised release.
In 2020 he was arrested in Puerto Rico on state charges under Article 133 (lewd acts) involving a 15‑year‑old who had been listed on his birth certificate; the state charge was reduced to attempted lewd acts.
The U.S. Probation Office moved to notify the federal court that Ramos had violated the supervised‑release condition prohibiting commission of another crime; a magistrate found probable cause.
At revocation sentencing the undisputed Guidelines range was 4–10 months; the government sought 3 years (the statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)) and the district judge imposed 3 years imprisonment plus 3 years supervised release.
The district judge recited graphic details about the underlying state conduct (e.g., "touched and sucked on [the victim's] left breast…"), but those specific allegations were not in the federal record and the source was not disclosed; Ramos objected only generally at sentencing and later filed (denied) reconsideration.
The First Circuit held that the district court plainly erred by relying on extra‑record, inflammatory factual details without disclosure or opportunity to rebut, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing before a different judge; the government may not relitigate those same Commonwealth details on remand but both parties may present new admissible evidence arising after the prior hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court relied on extra‑record factual allegations (including possibly an untranslated Spanish charging document) when imposing an upward variance	Government: no reliance on a Spanish document; any additional facts likely came from permissible probation officer communications and were not dispositive	Ramos: judge relied on inflammatory, extra‑record details (untranslated charging doc or undisclosed probation communications) that he never had notice to rebut	Court: Forfeiture of specific objection, but on plain‑error review found the judge did rely on extra‑record allegations without disclosure — clear error requiring vacatur
Whether Ramos preserved his challenge to the court's factual recitation	Government: defendant made only a general objection at sentencing, so argument is forfeited	Ramos: general objection insufficient to preserve specific claim, but error was plain	Court: Claim forfeited; reviewed for plain error under Olano; plain error shown
Whether the error affected Ramos' substantial rights and trial fairness	Government: absence of contemporaneous objection and lack of explicit source means no prejudice	Ramos: inflammatory extra‑record details likely drove the upward variance and deprived him of notice and opportunity to rebut	Court: The vivid, newly recited allegations immediately preceded the upward variance and likely affected sentencing outcome and judicial integrity — prejudice established
Whether the government may rely on the same Commonwealth details on remand	Government: may seek to justify an upward variance on same facts if it can	Ramos: government had its opportunity; may not get a second bite	Court: Government not entitled to relitigate the same Commonwealth details it failed to present properly at the prior sentencing; parties may offer new admissible post‑hearing evidence

Key Cases Cited

Millán‑Isaac v. United States, 749 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2014) (district court has broad sentencing discretion but may not rely on undisclosed extra‑record facts)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing reasonableness of sentence)
Rivera‑Rodríguez v. United States, 489 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (defendant has right to be sentenced on accurate, reliable information and to rebut evidence)
Marrero‑Pérez v. United States, 914 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2019) (ex parte probation‑court communications may not introduce new sentencing facts without disclosure)
Berzon v. United States, 941 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1991) (remand required where sentencing judge may have considered undisclosed facts)
Reyes‑Rivas v. United States, 909 F.3d 466 (1st Cir. 2018) (consideration of untranslated Spanish documents at sentencing is reversible error)
Gilman v. United States, 478 F.3d 440 (1st Cir. 2007) (plain‑error prejudice requirement explained)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (four‑part plain‑error standard)
Mangone v. United States, 105 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 1997) (use of undisclosed information undermines public confidence in proceedings)
Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (parties may introduce evidence of post‑sentencing rehabilitation or events on resentencing)