United States v. Suarez-Gonzalez
760 F.3d 96
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2011 Suárez-González, working on remodeling a USPS facility in San Juan, stole four USPS money orders, supplied a key to a confederate (Peña), and caused 126 bogus USPS money orders to be printed and cashed by accomplices.\
- Postal inspectors investigated after a tip; two indictments charged him with aiding and abetting theft/conversion of postal money orders (18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 500).\
- Suárez-González pleaded guilty to 126 counts across both indictments; plea agreements suggested guideline calculations and allowed the defendant to request split sentences and concurrent sentencing.\
- The PSI grouped the counts, recommended a combined offense level 9 with enhancements: loss > $70,000 (eight-level increase), a two-level enhancement under USSG §2B5.1(b)(2)(A) for possessing/controlling a counterfeiting device/materials, and placed him in CHC II; acceptance reduced levels.\
- The district court grouped counts, adopted the guideline adjustments but placed defendant in CHC I, producing a GSR of 21–27 months and sentenced him to 21 months (bottom of range).\
- On appeal Suárez-González challenged procedural reasonableness (primarily the §2B5.1(b)(2)(A) two-level enhancement and alleged failure to adequately consider §3553(a) factors) and substantive reasonableness of the 21-month sentence. The First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of USSG §2B5.1(b)(2)(A) two-level enhancement for use/possession of a "counterfeiting device" | Govt: enhancement applies when defendant produced/altered obligations using device/materials | Suárez-González: money orders were genuine blanks printed on authentic USPS equipment, so no "counterfeiting device" or "alteration"; enhancement inapplicable; lenity applies | Court: "counterfeiting device" plainly means a device used to counterfeit; printing bogus amounts on blanks altered instruments via a machine; enhancement applies; lenity not triggered |
| Adequate consideration of 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors | Govt: district court considered §3553(a) factors and articulated reasons for above-plea recommendation sentence | Suárez-González: court did not fairly/balancedly consider §3553(a), relied on improper weighing | Court: review for abuse of discretion; court sufficiently considered §3553(a) factors and permissibly weighed them, not required to address each factor explicitly |
| Substantive reasonableness of 21-month sentence | Govt: sentence within properly calculated GSR and supported by offense seriousness (>$100K, production and distribution) | Suárez-González: 21 months is excessive relative to plea agreement recommendations and mitigation | Court: sentence at bottom of correctly calculated GSR; plenary discretion and plausible rationale; no abuse of discretion; substantively reasonable |
| Grouping and combined loss calculation | Govt: counts properly grouped and aggregated for loss | Suárez-González: (no effective dispute on grouping besides effects on guidelines) | Court: accepted grouping and loss calculations (only enhancement was contested) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clark, 685 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2012) (de novo review of guideline interpretation)\
- United States v. Dixon, 449 F.3d 194 (1st Cir. 2006) (plain-meaning rule for guideline text; no rote recital of §3553(a) factors required)\
- United States v. Damon, 595 F.3d 395 (1st Cir. 2010) (applying rule of lenity to guidelines only if substantial ambiguity remains)\
- Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000) (rule of lenity principles)\
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for review of substantive reasonableness)\
- United States v. Santiago-Rivera, 744 F.3d 229 (1st Cir. 2014) (there is a range of reasonable sentences; defer to district court within that range)\
- United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2010) (§2B5.1(b)(2)(A) treats production of counterfeits as aggravating factor)