United States v. Slater, 694 F. App'x 813

Defendant John Slater pled guilty to bank robbery after threatening a teller with a note and obtaining $15,000; police later found clothing, matching stationery, ammunition, cash, and a gun; he admitted the robbery and waived Miranda.
PSI calculated total offense level 25 and criminal-history category V, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of 92–115 months (later cited as 92–115 and 100–125 in filings); Slater sought a below-guidelines sentence (requested 48 months) citing age, health, and military service.
Government requested near-top-guidelines sentence, relying in part on a victim-impact statement from the teller describing terror caused by the robbery.
At sentencing the district court imposed 115 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release, referencing the teller’s trauma, Slater’s lengthy criminal history, age/health/military service, and need to protect the public.
On appeal Slater challenged (1) district court’s consideration of the victim-impact statement he claims he received only right before sentencing, and (2) procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence; review was largely for plain error because Slater did not object below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did court plainly err by relying on a victim-impact statement the defendant could not review in time?	Slater: he received the teller's statement only immediately before sentencing, denying fair opportunity to examine/challenge it.	Gov't: timing unclear; record suggests the statement was received earlier and was referenced in PSI and memoranda.	No plain error — delay not shown to have prejudiced Slater; no particularized challenge to the statement was identified.
Was the sentence procedurally unreasonable (insufficient explanation re: downward departure request)?	Slater: court failed to adequately explain rejection of downward departure based on age, health, and military service.	Gov't: court addressed those factors and explained reliance on offense seriousness and criminal history.	No plain error — court expressly considered those factors and articulated reasons for within-guidelines sentence.
Was the sentence substantively unreasonable?	Slater: factors (age, medical, service) warranted leniency.	Gov't: offense and long criminal record support a severe sentence; age/health do not reliably reduce recidivism risk.	No abuse of discretion — within-guidelines sentence reasonable in light of offense and recidivism risk.
Standard of review for sentencing explanations and evidentiary timing	N/A	N/A	Review limited to plain error where defendant failed to object; even under abuse-of-discretion standard outcome is affirmed.

United States v. Curran, 926 F.2d 59 (1st Cir. 1991) (defendant must be given timely disclosure of materials relied on at sentencing)
United States v. Bramley, 847 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2017) (plain-error standard for unpreserved sentencing objections)
United States v. Dávila-González, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing procedural challenges)
United States v. Ruiz-Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir. 2015) (within-range sentences require less detailed explanation than variant sentences)
United States v. Ocasio-Cancel, 727 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2013) (discussion of explanations required for non-guidelines sentences)
United States v. Rivera-Clemente, 813 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2016) (addressing scope of review for substantive-reasonableness challenges)