United States v. Sanchez-Maldonado
737 F.3d 826
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Appellant Josué Sánchez-Maldonado and two confederates allegedly damaged FBI office air conditioning while seeking to strip and sell copper.
- Indictment charged aiding and abetting depredation of federal property with property damage over $20,000 under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1361.
- Plea negotiations produced a signed non-binding plea agreement including a waiver to appeal the judgment and sentence.
- Change-of-plea hearing occurred with magistrate judge recommendation and district court acceptance of the plea.
- PSI reported FBI loss estimate of $24,000 and recommended restitution of $24,000 to be shared among three defendants; Sánchez-Maldonado did not object.
- District court sentenced Sánchez-Maldonado to 30 days’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, and ordered pro rata restitution of $8,000 to the FBI; Sánchez-Maldonado appealed restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal waiver covers restitution orders. | Government argues waiver of appeal extends to restitution. | Sánchez-Maldonado contends waiver covers only sentence, not restitution. | Waiver absence on restitution considered; address merits despite potential waiver. |
| Whether $8,000 restitution supported by reliable evidence under MVRA. | Loss amount of $24,000 was reliable per PSI/FBI, justifying pro rata restitution. | Argues unsupported or disputed loss amount, challenging calculation. | District court’s reliance on the $24,000 loss amount was proper; MVRA satisfied. |
| Whether district court properly considered defendant's financial resources in setting payment schedule. | Record shows consideration of financial status via PSI and court’s acknowledgement. | Challenges lack of explicit findings or schedule details. | Court adequately considered financial circumstances; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salas-Fernández v. United States, 620 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2010) (waiver scope for restitution discussed; plain-error standards applied for new challenges)
- Prochner v. United States, 417 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2005) (restitution evidence sufficiency under MVRA)
- Ocasio-Cancel v. United States, 727 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2013) (restitution computation based on credible loss estimates)
- Duarte v. United States, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2001) (plain-error standard for restitution issues)
- Merric v. United States, 166 F.3d 406 (1st Cir. 1999) (judicial authority over payment schedules for monetary penalties)
- Zannino v. United States, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (waiver and finality considerations in appellate review)