United States v. Santiago-Lozada, 75 F.4th 285

In January 2020, Santiago‑Lozada committed two armed carjackings in Santurce, Puerto Rico (Jan. 25 and Jan. 31); during the Jan. 31 incident he forced an Uber driver to withdraw cash at an ATM while pressing a gun to the driver’s waist.
A federal grand jury charged eight counts; Santiago‑Lozada pleaded guilty to Counts 1 (carjacking Jan. 31), 2 (§ 924(c) possession in relation to Jan. 31), and 7 (carjacking Jan. 25) under a nonbinding plea; parties jointly recommended 123 months.
The PSR grouped the two carjackings, producing a combined Guidelines range of 63–78 months for the carjacking counts and a mandatory consecutive 60 months for the § 924(c) count.
The district court adopted the PSR but varied: sentenced 78 months (upper end) on the carjacking group and 84 months (24 months above the § 924(c) mandatory minimum) consecutive, totaling 162 months.
Santiago‑Lozada appealed, arguing (1) procedural error/plain error in the upward variance for Count 2 because the district court relied on factors already accounted for in the GSR, and (2) substantive unreasonableness for lack of adequate justification and insufficient weight given to mitigating factors.
The First Circuit affirmed, finding no plain error and no abuse of discretion — the variance was supported by considerations not fully accounted for in the Guidelines and the court provided a plausible, coherent rationale.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (United States)	Defendant's Argument (Santiago‑Lozada)	Held
Procedural reasonableness of 24‑month upward variance on § 924(c) (plain‑error review)	Variance justified because district court relied on brandishing/violent conduct specific to Count 2 not reflected in the Guideline for that count.	Variance improperly double‑counts conduct already considered in the GSR (brandishing was accounted for in carjacking calculations).	No plain error: brandishing/use of the firearm as to Count 2 was not subsumed in the GSR for that count, so the court permissibly gave it extra weight.
Substantive reasonableness of overall 162‑month sentence (abuse‑of‑discretion review)	Sentence reasonable given two violent, closely timed carjackings, kidnapping, ATM coercion, and need for deterrence and public protection.	Sentence excessive and insufficiently particularized; court undervalued mitigating factors (youth, drug use, mental health).	No abuse of discretion: district court provided a plausible, coherent rationale and adequately considered mitigating factors; variance falls within the wide universe of reasonable outcomes.

United States v. Rivera‑Berríos, 968 F.3d 130 (1st Cir. 2020) (court must explain when a factor already in Guidelines deserves extra weight)
United States v. Díaz‑Lugo, 963 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2020) (same principle on double‑counting and explanation)
United States v. Montero‑Montero, 817 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2016) (variance must be explained explicitly or by fair inference)
United States v. Morales‑Cortijo, 65 F.4th 30 (1st Cir. 2023) (unchallenged PSR facts are binding; plain‑error factual challenges difficult)
United States v. Merced‑García, 24 F.4th 76 (1st Cir. 2022) (plain‑error standard is demanding)
Holguín‑Hernández v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (U.S. 2020) (preservation via advocating for a shorter sentence)
United States v. Ortiz‑Pérez, 30 F.4th 107 (1st Cir. 2022) (two‑step review: procedural then substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Flores‑Nater, 62 F.4th 652 (1st Cir. 2023) (sources for facts after guilty plea: plea colloquy, unobjected PSR, sentencing record)