81 F.4th 1
1st Cir.2023Background
- Reyes pleaded guilty in 2014 to a federal drug offense and was released to supervised release; he had a history of substance use disorder and later diagnosed bipolar disorder.
- Reyes experienced multiple revocations: first in 2018 (nine months), second in 2019 (one year), and a third term beginning July 2020 (the term at issue) with repeated treatment noncompliance and missed appointments during COVID-19 disruptions.
- Probation obtained videos and other information allegedly showing Reyes under the influence of synthetic cannabinoids and sought an arrest warrant; the videos were available to Reyes at the preliminary hearing but its transcript was not in the district-court record at the final revocation hearing.
- At the October 2021 revocation hearing Reyes admitted the violations, requested a 12-month sentence (no supervised release), and the government recommended 12 months; Probation had recommended 9 months in its written submission.
- The district court revoked supervised release and imposed a 36-month sentence (the statutory maximum), noting it had viewed the videos and had received "wording" from Probation beforehand; defense objected to ex parte submissions and the length of the sentence.
- On appeal the First Circuit held that (1) receipt of the videos and the probation officer’s written recommendation did not require reversal, but (2) the district court failed to provide an adequate, case-specific justification for the 400% upward variance and thus vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reyes) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court’s ex parte receipt of videos and probation "wording" violated due process / Rule 32.1 | Videos and wording were submitted ex parte and contained new, material facts; Reyes lacked notice and opportunity to rebut | Videos were not "new" (allegations and videos were disclosed at the magistrate hearing) and the wording was advisory; any error was harmless | Court: Videos were not new information (Reyes had notice), so no reversible error; probation wording was advisory and any error was harmless |
| Whether the 36‑month upward variance was procedurally reasonable | Sentence was unexplained and disproportionate to Grade C technical violations and Reyes's mental‑health/substance issues | Court reasonably relied on record (repeated violations, exhausted resources) to justify an above‑guidelines sentence | Court: District court gave only boilerplate, non‑case‑specific reasons; failed to explain why this case differed from the mine‑run of Grade C revocations — abuse of discretion; vacated and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (explaining broad scope of information sentencing courts may consider)
- Tucker v. United States, 404 U.S. 443 (same principle on sentencing inquiry)
- United States v. Bramley, 847 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2017) (ex parte probation communications may not supply new, relied‑upon facts without disclosure)
- United States v. Marrero‑Pérez, 914 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2019) (probation officer may give court advice, but new facts must be disclosed)
- United States v. Ramos‑Carreras, 59 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2023) (new, materially relied‑upon information at sentencing can require reversal)
- United States v. Del Valle‑Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 171 (1st Cir. 2014) (court must adequately justify an upward variance)
- United States v. Serrano‑Berríos, 38 F.4th 246 (1st Cir. 2022) (rejecting boilerplate rationale for significant upward variance)
- United States v. Flores‑Nater, 62 F.4th 652 (1st Cir. 2023) (vacatur where non‑specific sentencing language was inadequate)
- United States v. Muñoz‑Fontanez, 61 F.4th 212 (1st Cir. 2023) (same)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (courts must state reasons for particular sentence and justify significant variances)