United States v. Rijos-Rivera, 53 F.4th 704

On Aug. 24–25, 2019, Rijos-Rivera drove a Ford Explorer with two co‑defendants (Rivera and Bruno) to a beach where the co‑defendants robbed and sexually assaulted a woman; one co‑defendant forced the woman to her Jeep to retrieve her debit/credit card and PIN.
Bruno and Rivera committed the abduction and sexual assault; they transferred items to Rijos‑Rivera's vehicle and gave her the victim's card and PIN; Rijos‑Rivera withdrew cash at an ATM.
A federal grand jury charged Rijos‑Rivera with carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury; she pled guilty and a PSI recommended a four‑level abduction enhancement under USSG §2B3.1(b)(4)(A).
Rijos‑Rivera objected to the abduction enhancement, arguing the abduction was not reasonably foreseeable to her and the court failed to make an individualized foreseeability finding under USSG §1B1.3.
The district court applied the four‑level abduction enhancement, denied a mitigating‑role adjustment, and imposed a 108‑month sentence (bottom of the Guidelines range) despite the parties’ joint recommendation of 70 months.
Rijos‑Rivera appealed, challenging (A) procedural error in applying the abduction enhancement and (B) substantive reasonableness of the 108‑month sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the four‑level abduction enhancement (USSG §2B3.1(b)(4)(A)) applies	Enhancement applies because victim was abducted to facilitate robbery and the abduction is attributable to Rijos under jointly undertaken criminal activity doctrine	Abduction not reasonably foreseeable to Rijos; district court failed to make the individualized §1B1.3 findings on scope, furtherance, and foreseeability	Affirmed: enhancement appropriate; record supports foreseeability and no abuse of discretion; any Guidelines error harmless because court would have imposed same sentence anyway
Whether the district court erred in preserving/standard of review (plain vs. abuse)	Challenge unpreserved; plain‑error review applies	Preserved; abuse‑of‑discretion review applies	Court assumed arguendo abuse review but found defendant loses under that standard, so no reversible error
Whether the 108‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable	Sentence is reasonable: within Guidelines and justified by defendant’s knowledge, participation, and aggravating conduct	Sentence excessive given parties’ 70‑month recommendation and Rijos’s claimed limited role	Affirmed: within‑range sentence rests on a plausible §3553(a) rationale and is a defensible result

United States v. Vargas, 560 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2009) (use plea colloquy and PSI for facts after guilty plea)
United States v. Matos‑de‑Jesús, 856 F.3d 174 (1st Cir. 2017) (two‑step sentencing‑review framework)
United States v. Padilla‑Galarza, 990 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2021) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard includes mixed modes of review)
United States v. Soto‑Villar, 40 F.4th 27 (1st Cir. 2022) (government bears preponderance burden for upward adjustments)
United States v. Rivera‑Berríos, 902 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2018) (Sentencing Commission commentary is authoritative)
United States v. Ouellette, 985 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2021) (if court says it would impose same sentence regardless of Guidelines, Guidelines error is harmless)
Holguin‑Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (2020) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for substantive‑reasonableness review)
United States v. deJesús, 6 F.4th 141 (1st Cir. 2021) (defendant faces uphill climb to show within‑range sentence unreasonable)