United States v. Rondon-Garcia
886 F.3d 14
| 1st Cir. | 2018Background
- Rondón was arrested after police found cocaine, drug ledgers, baggies, a 15-round Glock magazine (no gun), two phones, and a crack pipe in the apartment he shared with his common‑law wife and three children.
- He pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute <50 grams of cocaine; PSR and plea agreement calculated a total offense level 10 and a Guidelines range of 6–12 months (CHC I).
- While on bail pending sentencing, Rondón’s partner (and third‑party custodian) Rodríguez withdrew as custodian and was murdered shortly thereafter; probation had received a letter from Rodríguez alleging verbal and physical abuse by Rondón.
- At sentencing the district court adopted the Guidelines range but imposed an upward variance to 18 months, citing (among other things) alleged violent conduct, drugs and ammunition in a home with minors, and an assertedly underrepresented criminal history.
- On appeal Rondón argued the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable: (1) the court relied on ex parte/unnoticed and unreliable information about Rodríguez’s letter and the circumstances of her death, and (2) the court improperly relied on prior arrests (no convictions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of ex parte/unnoticed information at sentencing | Gov: sentencing courts may consider background information and hearsay; Rondón had opportunity to comment on PSR. | Rondón: court relied on probation’s undisclosed facts (abuse allegations and murder circumstances) without prior notice or chance to rebut; information lacked reliability. | Court: use of that undisclosed ex parte information was erroneous for notice and reliability reasons, but on plain‑error review declined to correct because remedy would be futile (Rondón near completing sentence) and appellant didn’t press the fourth prong. Sentence affirmed. |
| Consideration of prior arrests (no convictions) | Gov: district court may rely on PSR material; Rondón did not object to PSR content. | Rondón: prior arrests dismissed; relying on them as proof of wrongdoing violates due process and preponderance standard. | Court: referencing dismissed arrests was improper if treated as proof, but because Rondón failed to object and law was unsettled, plain‑error review did not require reversal. |
| Substantive reasonableness of 18‑month sentence | Gov: variance justified by drugs/ammunition in home with minors, community drug problem, and defendant characteristics. | Rondón: sentence was inflated by reliance on invalid, unsubstantiated grounds. | Court: even excluding improperly used facts, sufficient record support existed for the 18‑month sentence; it was within the universe of reasonable sentences and not abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for review of sentencing reasonableness)
- Flores‑Machicote v. United States, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (procedural/substantive reasonableness framework)
- Acevedo‑López v. United States, 873 F.3d 330 (1st Cir. 2017) (notice and disclosure of facts relied on at sentencing)
- Cortés‑Medina v. United States, 819 F.3d 566 (1st Cir. 2016) (caution against relying on arrests without convictions)
- Olivero v. United States, 552 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2009) (PSR generally reliable; defendant must object with countervailing proof)