101 F.4th 66
1st Cir.2024Background
- Reynaldo Rosa-Borges, while on supervised release for a prior firearm/drug offense, was arrested after police found him with another man at a beach in Puerto Rico, where a firearm, ammunition, marijuana, and phones were seized.
- The following day, a search of Rosa's residence led to the seizure of 100 additional rounds of ammunition based on a statement by Rosa's brother, Naim, who claimed the items belonged to Rosa, though the statement and events contained inconsistencies.
- Rosa pled guilty only to facts relating to the gun and 30 rounds found at the beach, excluding the additional 100 rounds from his plea agreement stipulation.
- The district court, relying on Naim’s disputed statement, imposed an above-Guidelines 72-month sentence for a new unlawful firearm possession offense and a consecutive 36-month sentence for revoking supervised release.
- Rosa appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness, including that the sentences were based on unreliable hearsay and breached his plea agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Rosa's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of Plea Agreement | Gov’t introduced evidence and arguments about March 30 search, undercutting its mid-range recommendation in the plea deal | Gov’t retained right to reference March 30 events for sentencing; did not breach plea | No breach occurred; Gov’t’s actions were within the plea agreement’s terms |
| Court’s Reliance on Unreliable Hearsay | Use of Naim’s statement (implicating Rosa for 100 extra rounds) was unreliable, self-serving, and contradictory | Statement was sworn and corroborated by objective evidence; thus reliable | Court abused discretion; statement was unreliable and could not support upward variance |
| Procedural Reasonableness (Rule 32(i)(3)(B)) | Court failed to rule on factual dispute about ammo ownership in PSR | No real factual dispute—Rosa didn’t challenge material facts | Dispute was implicitly resolved against Rosa; but reliance on unreliable statement made sentence procedurally unreasonable |
| Use of Hearsay at Revocation | Revocation sentence based on Naim’s out-of-court statement without confrontation violated due process/rules | No right to confrontation at revocation; statement reliable | Reliance on unreliable hearsay at revocation also required vacatur |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kimbrough, 552 U.S. 85 (discretion to vary from Guidelines based on policy disagreements but must rely on reliable facts)
- United States v. Ford, 73 F.4th 57 (requirement to resolve factual disputes in PSR at sentencing)
- United States v. Rondón-García, 886 F.3d 14 (sentencing must be based on reliable evidence and due process)
- United States v. Castillo-Torres, 8 F.4th 68 (reversible error for reliance on unreliable evidence at sentencing)
- United States v. Rivera-Rodríguez, 489 F.3d 48 (government can introduce facts outside plea stipulation to respond to defendant’s arguments if not precluded)