United States v. Santos-Rivera, 655 F. App'x 5

On Jan 8, 2014, Christian Santos-Rivera fired warning shots during an altercation; police recovered a Glock converted to function as a machinegun.
Santos pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a machinegun (18 U.S.C. § 922(o)) pursuant to a plea agreement recommending 24–30 months' imprisonment.
The PSR calculated a Sentencing Guidelines Range (SGR) of 30–37 months and noted Puerto Rico's high gun- and violent-crime rates as a potential basis for an upward variance.
At sentencing the district court accepted the PSR, found a guidelines sentence insufficient under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and imposed an upward variance to 48 months' imprisonment.
Santos did not object to the PSR or raise sentencing objections at the district-court hearing; he appealed only after sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness: whether the district court adequately justified the upward variance	Santos contended the court failed to provide adequate justification for varying upward from the SGR	The government argued the court properly considered § 3553(a) factors, community crime rates, and specific facts about Santos' conduct	Court held no procedural error; judge considered § 3553(a), individualized facts (use/firing of machinegun), and explained deterrence rationale tied to Puerto Rico crime rates
Substantive reasonableness: whether the 48‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable	Santos argued the upward variance resulted in an excessive sentence	Government defended the sentence as within statutory maximum and supported by circumstances and deterrence needs	Court held sentence substantively reasonable under totality of circumstances and within permissible range
Failure to seek downward departure for mental conditions (5H1.3)	Santos suggested he merited a downward departure for cognitive/mental issues	Government noted Santos failed to raise this below and did not adequately develop it on appeal	Court rejected the claim as unpreserved and inadequately developed; declined to consider it

United States v. Arroyo-Maldonado, 791 F.3d 193 (standard for reviewing sentencing reasonableness)
United States v. Medina–Villegas, 700 F.3d 580 (plain-error standard elements on unpreserved sentencing claims)
United States v. Ruiz-Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (discussion of review standard for unpreserved substantive claims)
United States v. Narváez-Soto, 773 F.3d 282 (community crime incidence informs deterrence and sentencing)
United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (community violence may justify stiffer sentence for deterrence)
United States v. Torres-Landrúa, 783 F.3d 58 (judge's statement of considering § 3553(a) entitled to weight)
United States v. Santiago-Rivera, 744 F.3d 229 (consideration of § 3553(a) factors at sentencing)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (reasonable sentence requires plausible rationale and defensible result)
United States v. Pedroza-Orengo, 817 F.3d 829 (review of substantive reasonableness in context of variance)
United States v. King, 741 F.3d 305 (limits on appellate review of sentencing discretion)
United States v. Vázquez-Martínez, 812 F.3d 18 (upholding variances given circumstances)
United States v. Pantojas-Cruz, 800 F.3d 54 (substantive-reasonableness review of sentences)
United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (appellate rule against considering inadequately developed arguments)