United States v. Roman-Diaz
853 F.3d 591
1st Cir.2017Background
- In 2012 Román-Díaz participated in a drug-distribution conspiracy in Ponce, Puerto Rico; he acted as an enforcer and stored drugs/weapons; a co-conspirator's rifle killed a high-school student (Ruiz‑Vega).
- A federal two-count indictment charged him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack and other drugs (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug‑trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); he pleaded guilty to both counts pursuant to a plea agreement.
- The plea agreement stipulated to a specific crack quantity (112–196 g), recommended 60 months on count one and a consecutive 60 months on count two, and proposed that the federal sentence run concurrently with an existing 1,000‑year Puerto Rico sentence tied to the Ruiz‑Vega murder.
- The PSR recommended applying a murder cross‑reference (raising offense level and a CHC of III), producing a guideline range of 360–480 months for count one; the district court rejected the murder cross‑reference, treated the drug weight as stipulated (offense level 23 after adjustments), but placed Román‑Díaz in CHC IV.
- The district court sentenced him to 87 months on count one (top of range) and 60 months on count two (statutory mandatory, consecutive to count one), and ordered both federal sentences to run consecutively to the undischarged state sentence. Román‑Díaz appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Román‑Díaz) | Defendant's Argument (Government / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether increasing CHC from III to IV without specific notice/Rule 32(h) procedure was error | Court “departed” to higher CHC without notice or opportunity to be heard, violating Rule 32(h) | CHC determination is part of guideline computation, not a "departure" triggering Rule 32(h); defendant had notice of convictions and opportunity to be heard | No error — CHC change was not a departure; procedural requirements satisfied |
| Whether defendant was denied a meaningful opportunity to comment under Rule 32(i)(1)(C) | He lacked adequate chance to contest CHC placement | Defendant and counsel had opportunity and in fact assented to adding three history points that shifted CHC | No error — defendant had meaningful opportunity and participated |
| Whether district court misapplied guidelines in ordering federal sentence consecutive to undischarged state sentence (USSG §5G1.3) | Consecutive order was improper; should have followed agreement recommending concurrency | Court exercised discretion under §5G1.3(d) because state convictions were not "relevant conduct"; court considered §3553(a) factors and GSR | No abuse of discretion — subsection (d) governs and court permissibly imposed consecutive sentence |
| Standard of review and preservation | (implicit) procedural objections not raised below require plain‑error review | Where claim was preserved or arguably raised, review is abuse of discretion; otherwise plain error must be shown | Applied plain‑error for CHC procedural claim (not preserved); abuse‑of‑discretion for consecutive‑sentence challenge (arguably raised); no reversible error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (interpretation of advisory Guidelines/reasonableness review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (reasonableness review = abuse of discretion; procedural/substantive steps)
- Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (distinguishing departures from variances; notice rules)
- Parkinson v. United States, 44 F.3d 6 (sentencing court must determine offense level and CHC)
- Carrasco‑de‑Jesús v. United States, 589 F.3d 22 (discretion to impose consecutive/concurrent sentence regarding undischarged state term)
- Ziskind v. United States, 471 F.3d 266 (limitations on discretion re consecutive/concurrent decisions)
- Rivera‑Rodríguez v. United States, 489 F.3d 48 (meaningful opportunity to comment at sentencing)
- Llanos‑Falero v. United States, 847 F.3d 29 (application of USSG §5G1.3(d) and §3553(a) in consecutive/concurrent determinations)