United States v. Santini-Santiago
846 F.3d 487
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Kelvin Santini-Santiago pled guilty to being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).
- Sentencing Guidelines range called for 12–18 months; district court imposed 36 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.
- District court cited Santini’s longtime drug use, fugitive status on state murder and weapons charges, capture while armed with a stolen gun, and failure to turn himself in as reasons to sentence above the Guidelines range.
- Santini did not object at sentencing and appeals under the plain-error standard, alleging (1) inadequate notice under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h), (2) reliance on unproven allegations and inappropriate factfinding, and (3) judicial bias requiring recusal.
- The district court explained its rationale as a § 3553(a) variance rather than a Guidelines departure and relied on facts contained in the presentence report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice under Rule 32(h) | Government: sentencing court complied; no plain error. | Santini: court failed to give reasonable notice before departing/raising sentence above Guidelines. | Court: No plain error — district court expressly treated the increase as a § 3553(a) variance, and Rule 32(h) does not apply to variances post-Booker. |
| Reliance on unproven state allegations | Government: facts in PSR were undisputed and relevant to § 3553(a) factors. | Santini: punished for unproven criminal conduct and improper factfinding. | Court: Permissible to consider fugitive status, firearm possession, and recidivism risk; facts relied on were in PSR and properly used in balancing § 3553(a) factors. |
| Consideration of failure to turn himself in / "learn his lesson" | Government: these bear on defendant’s characteristics and risk of recidivism. | Santini: improper factors to justify higher sentence. | Court: Such considerations legitimately inform seriousness and defendant characteristics under § 3553(a); sentencing discretion not abused. |
| Judicial bias / recusal | Government: no evidence of bias. | Santini: district judge’s conduct created appearance of bias under 28 U.S.C. § 455. | Court: Issue waived for lack of developed argument and record support; rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (establishes standard for reviewing variances and reasonableness review)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (rendered Guidelines advisory and distinguished departures from variances)
- Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (clarifies Rule 32(h) does not apply to variances)
- United States v. Vega-Santiago, 519 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. en banc) (notice or continuance may be required where a variance would unfairly surprise counsel)
- United States v. Pantojas-Cruz, 800 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2015) (discusses Rule 32(h) and variances)
- United States v. Brown, 732 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2013) (observes Rule 32(h) has little utility post-Booker)
- United States v. Nelson, 793 F.3d 202 (1st Cir. 2015) (finding a variance where court used departure language but then expressly varied)