United States v. Santa-Otero, 843 F.3d 547

Background

In 2013 Sergio Santa-Otero pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and to possession of a machine gun (18 U.S.C. § 922(o)) after police found a Glock modified to fire automatically, two extended magazines, four standard magazines, and 101 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition in his car.
The PSR treated the firearm as a machine gun and set a base offense level of 22 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3), reduced for acceptance of responsibility to a total offense level of 19 and criminal history category III, yielding a guidelines range of 37–46 months.
At the first sentencing the district court mischaracterized Santa’s prior drug conviction, imposed 65 months, and this court vacated and remanded for resentencing.
On remand the parties agreed the guidelines range remained 37–46 months; the district court imposed a 60‑month sentence (14 months above the guidelines range).
Santa appealed, raising procedural and substantive challenges to the variance, including double-counting arguments, reliance on unsupported illicit-conduct findings, mischaracterization of criminal history, and improper use of Puerto Rico community conditions (including equal protection concerns).

Issues

Issue	United States' Argument	Santa's Argument	Held
Whether district court impermissibly "double-counted" by relying on the machine gun to justify a variance	Court may rely on additional, specific attributes of the firearm/ammunition (extended/high-capacity magazines, quantity of rounds) as not fully accounted for in the guideline calculation	District court relied on the machine gun (a guideline factor) to justify a variance, requiring special articulation under Zapete‑García	Affirmed: The court relied on features beyond the guideline factor (extra magazines, rounds), so not impermissible double-counting
Whether the court impermissibly attributed additional illicit conduct without a preponderance of evidence	Court rejected Santa’s self-defense claim after reviewing facts; did not base sentence on unproven, distinct crimes	Court accepted the self-defense explanation; sentencing relied on assumptions about illicit purpose unsupported by evidence	Affirmed: District court reasonably disbelieved the self-defense claim; did not err in weighing conduct
Whether the court erred by treating charged-but-not-convicted conduct as reflecting an under‑represented criminal history	Government pointed to the PSR and actual convictions; district court clarified and based sentence on the two Puerto Rico convictions	Santa argued the court assumed more prior wrongdoing than convictions showed	Affirmed: Court explicitly set aside that concern and accurately summarized convictions before sentencing
Whether reliance on Puerto Rico community characteristics (and citations to local penalty/statistics) was improper or violated equal protection	Community crime incidence and need for deterrence are permissible sentencing considerations; local law/penalties may contextualize the sentence	Santa argued the court over-relied on community hostility, used unreliable sources, and violated equal protection by punishing based on location	Affirmed: Court used community characteristics permissibly, grounded in case-specific factors and sufficient justification for the variance

Key Cases Cited

Ruiz-Huertas v. United States, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir.) (standards of review for sentencing legal/factual issues)
Zapete-García v. United States, 447 F.3d 57 (1st Cir.) (judge must articulate why a factor already in the Guidelines justifies a variance)
Flores-Machicote v. United States, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.) (community crime incidence can inform sentencing but must be tied to case-specific factors)
Smith v. United States, 445 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (degree of departure requires correspondingly compelling 3553(a) justification)
Álvarez-Núñez v. United States, 828 F.3d 52 (1st Cir.) (sentencing authority may consider a wide range of relevant material)