United States v. Reverol-Rivera, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2634

Reverol and an accomplice piloted a small boat that rendezvoused with another craft in international waters; agents later found 148.5 kg of cocaine after the vessel entered U.S. waters.
Reverol pleaded guilty under a plea agreement that described him as the vessel "captain" but used a guidelines calculation that omitted the two-level "captain" enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(3)(C)); the government agreed to recommend the low end of the guideline range in the plea agreement.
The presentence report applied the two-level captain enhancement; at sentencing the government and Reverol both initially urged a 108-month sentence (the low end of the range calculated without the enhancement).
The accomplice, who shared similar criminal-history category, received 63 months (low end of his guideline range); his calculation did not include the captain enhancement and did include a minor-role reduction.
The district court adopted the presentence report’s calculation, applied the captain enhancement to Reverol, and sentenced him to 135 months (the low end of the higher guideline range).
The district court explained the disparity by finding Reverol significantly more culpable: he recruited the accomplice at the last minute, transported him to the boat, primarily captained the vessel, read the GPS, and knew the pickup location. Reverol appealed.

Issue	Reverol's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness: did the district court adequately consider Reverol's arguments (including disparity)?	Court failed to adequately consider his sentencing arguments and the plea-based recommendation for 108 months.	The court did consider the arguments and relied on factual findings supporting a higher sentence.	Affirmed: court adequately considered arguments; no procedural error.
Substantive reasonableness / co-defendant disparity under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)	A 135-month sentence is substantively unreasonable given the accomplice’s 63-month sentence; 108 months was the most that could be justified by greater culpability.	Differences in culpability justify disparate sentences; Reverol was more culpable so 135 months is reasonable.	Affirmed: district court’s factual findings of greater culpability rationally support the higher sentence; no abuse of discretion.

United States v. Ayala-Vazquez, 751 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (district court adequately considered co-defendant disparity arguments in sentencing)
United States v. Dávila-González, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir.) (§ 3553(a)(6) primarily addresses national disparities)
United States v. Mateo-Espejo, 426 F.3d 508 (1st Cir.) (co-defendant cooperation differences can justify disparity)
United States v. Rivera-Maldonado, 194 F.3d 224 (1st Cir.) (differences in culpability can justify disparate co-defendant sentences)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.) (reasonable sentence requires a plausible sentencing rationale and defensible result)