United States v. Rodriguez-Reyes
925 F.3d 558
| 1st Cir. | 2019Background
- Rodríguez, a felon with prior state and federal convictions, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of an AM-15 assault rifle (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- PSR calculated a Total Offense Level 12 and Criminal History Category III, yielding a Guidelines range of 15–21 months; the PSR also listed six prior arrests that did not result in convictions and documented a long history of drug use.
- At sentencing the government recommended 21 months (top of the range); Rodríguez asked for 15 months (bottom of the range); the district court imposed an upward variance to 36 months and explained its consideration of § 3553(a) factors.
- Rodríguez did not object at sentencing to the PSR, the district court’s discussion of prior arrests, or to the sentence, and he timely appealed asserting procedural and substantive error.
- The First Circuit reviewed for plain error on procedural claims and for abuse of discretion (assumed) on substantive claims, and affirmed the 36‑month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Rodríguez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court plainly erred by referencing arrests not leading to convictions when imposing an upward variance | Court may consider arrests supported by reliable indicia; PSR and admissions corroborate drug conduct | Referencing arrests without convictions improperly weighed bare arrest record to justify variance | No plain error; PSR and admissions provided sufficient indicia of reliability and district court relied on other §3553(a) factors |
| Whether the district court adequately considered §3553(a) factors | District court explicitly considered nature of offense, history/characteristics, deterrence, and public protection | Court failed to meaningfully weigh §3553(a) factors; cited nothing specific | Held adequate: court expressly considered and explained §3553(a) factors; no prejudice shown |
| Whether the court erred by varying from the government’s plea recommendation | A district court is not bound by parties’ recommendations and may impose its own sentence | Court should have followed government recommendation tied to plea agreement | Waived/meritless: plea recommendation does not bind the court; no error in choosing a different sentence |
| Whether the upward variance was substantively unreasonable (greater than necessary) | Variance supported by legitimate §3553(a) considerations (weapon type, recidivism risk, drug use, timing after supervised release) | Sentence longer than necessary; court failed to weigh mitigating factors | No abuse of discretion: rationale plausible and 36 months within the broad range of reasonable outcomes |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Marrero-Pérez, 914 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2019) (arrests without corroboration problematic for upward departures but not a blanket bar to variances)
- United States v. Mercer, 834 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2016) (courts may refer to dismissed charges when linked to conduct described in PSR)
- United States v. Tabares, 951 F.2d 405 (1st Cir. 1991) (sentencing court may consider arrests not resulting in convictions when facts are uncontested and no acquittal)
- United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (criminal history underrepresentation may be considered in §3553(a) analysis)
- United States v. Dávila-González, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2010) (source of facts on plea-sentencing appeals: plea colloquy, unchallenged PSR, and sentencing hearing)
- United States v. Ruiz-Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir. 2015) (procedural/substantive bifurcated review of sentencing)