United States v. Rivera-Gonzalez
776 F.3d 45
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Rivera-González pleaded guilty to: (1) conspiracy to distribute controlled substances near a protected location; (2) possession with intent to distribute ~4 kg marijuana; and (3) possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). Five other counts were dismissed.
- The parties’ non-binding plea agreement anticipated Guidelines ranges for the drug counts based on CHC I and jointly recommended 120 months for the principal drug count, 6 months concurrent for the marijuana count, and the mandatory 60-month consecutive term for the § 924(c) gun count.
- The PSI grouped the drug counts and, using CHC I, produced a lower grouped Guidelines range; the district court adopted the PSI calculations without objection.
- At sentencing the court imposed within-Guidelines concurrent sentences of 96 months (drug count) and 12 months (marijuana), then imposed an 84-month consecutive sentence on the § 924(c) count (24 months above the 60-month mandatory minimum).
- Rivera-González appealed solely the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the 84-month gun sentence; appeal proper because imposed sentence diverged from the parties’ recommended 60-month term and therefore fell outside the plea-waiver scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of the 84-month § 924(c) sentence | (Gov’t) Sentence is lawful and within district court discretion to vary above mandatory minimum | Rivera-González: court failed to individualize, overemphasized community-based crime concerns and local leniency, ignored mitigating factors (age, minimal record, family) and the drug sentences | Court affirmed: district court considered personal history and § 3553(a) factors; community references tied to deterrence; no procedural error |
| Substantive reasonableness of the 24-month upward variance above mandatory minimum | (Gov’t) Upward variance justified by deterrence, defendant’s role as drug point owner/enforcer, possession of multiple firearms in furtherance of trafficking | Rivera-González: 24-month (40%) increase is excessive and violates parsimony principle | Court affirmed: variance produced a plausible, defensible result; within the universe of reasonable sentences and produced the parties’ previously-agreed aggregate term |
| Appeal waiver enforceability | (Gov’t) Waiver bars appeals of sentences that conform to plea recommendation | Rivera-González: waiver does not bar appeal because imposed § 924(c) sentence diverged from the Agreement’s recommended 60 months | Court held appeal valid because sentence on § 924(c) did not conform to plea recommendation |
| Relationship between § 924(c) mandatory minimum and Guidelines | (Gov’t) Mandatory minimum is treated as the guideline sentence for § 924(c) consecutive term calculation | Rivera-González: (implicit) court misapplied guideline relationship | Court explained: §2K2.4(b) deems the statutory minimum the guideline recommendation; any higher sentence is an upward variance |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (two-step review of sentencing: procedural then substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (appellate review standard and plausibility of sentencing rationale)
- United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (warning against overemphasis on community considerations at expense of individualization)
- United States v. Millán-Isaac, 749 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2014) (treating § 924(c) mandatory minimum as the Guidelines recommendation under §2K2.4(b))
- United States v. Walker, 665 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 2011) (appellate standard recognizing a universe of reasonable sentences)
- United States v. Rodríguez, 527 F.3d 221 (1st Cir. 2008) (parsimony principle: sentence must be sufficient but not greater than necessary)