United States v. Soto-Soto, 855 F.3d 445

Josue Soto-Soto pleaded guilty (Oct 18, 2013) to being a felon in possession of a firearm; sentenced to 18 months imprisonment plus 3 years supervised release.
While on supervised release he repeatedly violated conditions (fleeing probation intake, unauthorized departures from transitional housing, alleged distribution of synthetic marijuana, domestic-violence–related local charges).
May 19, 2015 hearing: court found violations but did not revoke supervised release; added cognitive behavioral treatment and warned further noncompliance would lead to revocation.
Jan 15, 2016 hearing: additional violations alleged; court accepted plea agreement to add anger-management and domestic-violence counseling, again warned this was the appellant’s "last opportunity".
Soon after, appellant absconded and was later taken into custody; probation moved to revoke supervised release. Appellant admitted the revocation allegations and asked for time served or the guideline low end (5 months) with no new supervised release.
District court revoked supervised release and—despite a guideline range of 5–11 months—imposed the statutory maximum of 2 years imprisonment with no new supervised release. Soto-Soto appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural error: court’s statement that Soto-Soto had been given "two previous opportunities" mischaracterized prior proceedings and affected sentencing	Govt: court’s characterization was supported by the record (May and Jan hearings effectively were opportunities to avoid revocation)	Soto-Soto: Jan 15 hearing had no revocation finding, so calling it an "opportunity" was incorrect and prejudicial	Court: No plain error; contemporaneous minutes and common usage support calling Jan 15 an "opportunity" and the remark did not render sentencing unfair
Preservation / standard of review for procedural claim	Govt: appellant failed to preserve specific objection to the "two previous opportunities" comment; review is plain-error	Soto-Soto: preserved a general procedural-unreasonableness objection	Court: Specific objection not preserved; reviewed for plain error and found none
Substantive reasonableness of two-year (statutory maximum) sentence	Govt: hefty sentence justified by repeated violations, lack of respect for supervision, need for deterrence and public protection; no new supervised release appropriate	Soto-Soto: sentence excessive given guideline range (5–11 months) and no prior revocation	Court: Within abuse-of-discretion bounds; articulated plausible rationale (history of noncompliance, warnings, unsuitability for further supervision) and result defensible

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness standard for appellate review of sentences)
United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2001) (plain-error standard explanation)
United States v. Ofray-Campos, 534 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (deference to district court explanations at sentencing)
United States v. Vargas-Dávila, 649 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2011) (application of § 3553(a) factors after supervised-release revocation)
United States v. Work, 409 F.3d 484 (1st Cir. 2005) (advisory nature of supervised-release revocation Guidelines)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (substantive reasonableness as "protean" concept)