United States v. Rodriguez
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26267
1st Cir.2010Background
- Rodriguez sold two sawed-off guns to undercover officers and pled guilty to firearms offenses.
- At sentencing (2009), the district judge used Guidelines in effect at sentencing, including a four-level post-offense enhancement added after Rodriguez’s crimes.
- That post-offense amendment would have raised the range from 70–87 to 108–135 months.
- The judge imposed 108 months, at the bottom of the then-calculated range.
- Rodriguez appeals: does sentencing under newer, harsher Guidelines violate ex post facto protections?
- The First Circuit declines to resolve the constitutional question, instead applying plain-error review and remanding for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex post facto issue bar | Rodriguez argues the newer Guidelines impose harsher punishment. | Government argues Booker-era advisory Guidelines allow later revisions to aid sentencing. | Plain-error exists; remand for resentencing using appropriate Guidelines. |
| Starting-point for Guidelines | Using the harsher post-offense Guidelines risks ex post facto effects. | Judges may consult later amendments under Booker discretionary framework. | Remand to apply the earlier Guidelines version to avoid ex post facto concerns. |
| Correctness of the district court's calculation | Error in applying the post-offense enhancement affects the sentence. | No reversible error given overall sentencing factors. | Plain error established; remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion. |
| Remand vs. outright reversal | Resolution of the proper Guidelines suffices; resentencing should be redone. | Not argued here; the case turns on the proper starting point. | Remand for resentencing; avoids constitutional ruling on the issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Maldonado, 242 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (use old Guidelines to avoid ex post facto concerns)
- United States v. Wallace, 461 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2006) (guidelines revision consulted without creating ex post facto problem)
- United States v. Padilla, 415 F.3d 211 (1st Cir. 2005) (en banc; plain-error standard for sentencing errors)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (upholds advisory Guidelines role post-Booker; within statutory range)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (requires proper calculation of Guidelines range; informs within-range discretion)
- United States v. Gilmore, 599 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2010) (consulting later-amended Guidelines raises no ex post facto concerns)