United States v. Rivera-Gonzalez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 278
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Rivera-Gonzalez was arrested by PRPD and confessed to two murders and an assault after arrest.
- Federal indictment charged conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, possession with intent to distribute, firearms by a prohibited person, and aiding and abetting possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime.
- Plea: Rivera pled guilty to conspiracy and aiding and abetting, with a plea agreement recommending 0-12 months for conspiracy and 60 months (minimum) for §924(c), total 60-72 months.
- PSR cross-referenced murder guidelines for base offense, yielding a total offense level of 40 and a 292-365 month range for conspiracy, though 60 months was the statutory maximum.
- District Court sentenced 6 months for conspiracy and 360 months for §924(c), total 366 months, with debates about concurrency with Puerto Rico sentence.
- Rivera later pled guilty in Puerto Rico court and received 104 years, 6 months; federal and Puerto Rico sentences were not reconciled in the written judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of explanation for the variance from guidelines | Rivera contends the variance lacks adequate explanation. | Rivera argues the district court failed to justify the 360-month variance. | Variance inadequately explained; vacate and remand for explanation. |
| Conformity with Gonzalez on §924(c) sentences | Gonzalez requires §924(c) sentences be consecutive to others. | Written judgment silent; no conflict with Gonzalez. | No conflict; judgment silent is not a Gonzalez violation. |
| Rule 32(h) notice preservation | Informative motions did not waive challenges. | Government argues challenges were waived. | Not waived; issues preserved for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Oquendo-Garcia, 783 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2015) (variance under 924(c) treated as upward variance)
- Rivera-González, 776 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2015) (consecutive/concurrent considerations for §924(c))
- United States v. Politano, 522 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2008) (discretion to impose variant sentences)
- United States v. Crespo-Ríos, 787 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2015) (requirement to explain variances; remedy via remand)
- United States v. Perazza-Mercado, 553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2009) (adequacy of explanation for sentences; lack of explanation equals obvious error)
- United States v. Wallace, 461 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2006) (remand for adequate sentence explanation; fairness considerations)
- United States v. Gilman, 478 F.3d 440 (1st Cir. 2007) (remand when sentencing explanation is inadequate)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 520 U.S. 1 (1997) (consolidated rule on concurrent vs. consecutive sentences with 924(c))