24 F.4th 82
1st Cir.2022Background
- Reyes-Barreto pled guilty in April 2013 to conspiracy to distribute heroin and received a 5‑year prison term and 4 years supervised release (supervision began Oct. 7, 2016).
- Puerto Rico probation assumed supervision in June 2017; probation reported multiple violations (failure to follow PO instructions, lying, moving without notice, driving without a license), all of which Reyes‑Barreto admitted.
- February–April 2018: positive marijuana test led to electronic monitoring/home detention; later reported additional violations (leaving home without permission, being out late, an arrest with others involving drugs, a gun, and a stolen vehicle); Reyes‑Barreto did not contest these.
- At revocation hearing the Guideline range (Grade C; CHC I) was 3–9 months; defense asked for 4 months; the district court revoked supervised release and imposed 12 months incarceration plus 3 years supervised release.
- Reyes‑Barreto appealed only the incarcerative sentence; he was released from custody after filing his opening brief and the government argued the appeal was moot.
- The First Circuit held the appeal was not moot (he remains on supervised release and may seek relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)) and affirmed the 12‑month sentence as procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Reyes‑Barreto's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of appeal | Release does not moot because he remains on supervised release and can seek equitable relief (modify or terminate supervised release) | Release moots appeal; citing Suarez‑Reyes, a served sentence is an empty exercise if defendant makes no supervised‑release argument | Not moot: distinguished Suarez (defendant there faced imminent deportation); Reyes‑Barreto retains a concrete interest and may seek §3583(e) relief |
| Procedural reasonableness | District punished for new conduct / court erred procedurally (objection asserted but not developed) | Court properly calculated Guidelines, considered §3553(a), and explained sentence | Procedurally reasonable: court followed required roadmap and gave reasoned explanation |
| Substantive reasonableness (length) | 12 months is excessive vs 3–9 month advisory range | Sentence below statutory max, justified by serial violations and deterrence | Substantively reasonable: 12 months (3 months above Guidelines) defensible and not an abuse of discretion |
| Preservation / standard of review | Counsel attempted to preserve an unreasonableness objection | Government urges plain‑error review for procedural claim | Court did not resolve standard; found sentence procedurally reasonable even under abuse‑of‑discretion review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Suarez‑Reyes, 910 F.3d 604 (1st Cir. 2018) (appeal moot where defendant released, facing imminent deportation, and made no supervised‑release argument)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 53 (2000) (courts may modify or terminate supervised release under §3583(e))
- United States v. Arce‑Calderon, 954 F.3d 379 (1st Cir. 2020) (two‑step review: procedural then substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Vixamar, 679 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2012) (substantive reasonableness: appellate deference when sentencing rationale is plausible)
- United States v. Wright, 812 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2016) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard on revocation sentencing review)
- United States v. Carter, 860 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2017) (defendant’s continuing supervised‑release interests can prevent mootness)
- United States v. DeLeon, 444 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2006) (mootness where defendant in immigration custody facing imminent deportation)
- United States v. Tanco‑Pizarro, 892 F.3d 472 (1st Cir. 2018) (district court not bound by advisory Guidelines on revocation)