United States v. Rivera-Gerena, 112 F.4th 67

Misael M. Rivera-Gerena pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a large quantity of cocaine on a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Following a guilty plea, the district court calculated a guideline sentencing range (GSR) of 262-327 months, based on the actual amount of drugs seized.
Rivera-Gerena requested the statutory minimum sentence (120 months), while the government recommended 135 months.
The district court imposed a 147-month sentence, varying significantly downward from the GSR but exceeding both parties’ recommendations.
On appeal, Rivera-Gerena contended the sentence was both procedurally flawed and substantively unreasonable, asserting inadequate consideration of mitigating factors.
The First Circuit reviewed the procedural challenge (unpreserved) for plain error, and the substantive challenge for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Rivera-Gerena's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Procedural Error: Did the district court adequately consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors?	District court ignored mitigating factors and focused only on negatives.	Court considered all relevant factors and explained reasoning.	No procedural error; sufficient consideration shown.
Substantive Reasonableness: Was the sentence substantively unreasonable?	Sentence was too harsh relative to mitigating evidence.	Downward variance from GSR was generous and justified by facts.	Sentence was within court’s discretion and reasonable.
Sentencing Disparity: Was the sentence disparate compared to co-defendant?	Disparity unjustified as co-defendant received lesser sentence.	Appellant’s greater criminal history warranted higher sentence.	No unwarranted disparity; differences justified.
Government’s conduct on appeal: Did gov’t breach plea agreement by defending sentence?	Asserted that government violated plea agreement by supporting a higher sentence on appeal.	Allowed to defend district court’s ruling when defendant appeals.	No breach; gov’t free to defend sentence on appeal.

United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (Defines review standards for sentencing reasonableness)
United States v. Vargas-Dávila, 649 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2011) (Clarifies abuse of discretion review for sentencing)
United States v. Lozada-Aponte, 689 F.3d 791 (1st Cir. 2012) (No requirement to mention every factor individually)
United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (Standards for factfinding and guidelines interpretation in sentencing)
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 589 U.S. 169 (2020) (Preservation of substantive reasonableness challenge)
United States v. King, 741 F.3d 305 (1st Cir. 2014) (Below-range sentences are rarely found unreasonable)