United States v. Thompson, 681 F. App'x 8

Malcolm Thompson pled guilty to distributing heroin and cocaine base; PSR—uncontested—calculated a Guidelines range of 30–37 months (total offense level 17, criminal history category III).
Over ~4 months Thompson sold ~22.9g heroin and 0.34g cocaine base to a cooperating informant; $5,350 seized at arrest treated as drug proceeds.
PSR recited multiple prior drug-related convictions and contacts with police from ages 17–28, including a conviction admitting he worked as a "connect," a failure-to-appear on pending felony charges, and presence at an Arizona raid where large quantities of drugs and cash were found.
At sentencing government urged 37 months; defense asked for 30 months. The district court pressed Thompson about his criminal history and skepticism about rehabilitation.
District court adopted the PSR, explained it considered the § 3553(a) factors, characterized Thompson as a "professional drug dealer," and imposed an upward variance to 48 months. Thompson did not object at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness: did the court err in imposing an upward variance?	Government: variance justified by defendant's persistent, extensive criminal history and other conduct showing recidivism.	Thompson: court overweighed criminal history, failed adequately to balance § 3553(a) factors, and did not explain why relied-on factors (part of Guidelines calculation) justified a variance.	No plain error. Court permissibly weighed factors, cited specific facts beyond mere conviction counts (failure to appear, Arizona arrest, continuous drug involvement) distinguishing this case from the Guidelines "heartland."
Substantive reasonableness: was 48 months substantively unreasonable?	Government: upward variance reasonable to promote deterrence, incapacitation given pattern of recidivism.	Thompson: Guidelines range was adequate; an 11-month upward variance excessive.	Affirmed. The variance was within the appellate court's range of acceptable variances given the district court's factual findings and sentencing rationale.

United States v. Arroyo-Maldonado, 791 F.3d 193 (1st Cir. 2015) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review of advisory Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2001) (plain-error review elements)
United States v. Santa-Otero, 843 F.3d 547 (1st Cir. 2016) (when a factor is reflected in the Guidelines, judge must explain why the case is different)
United States v. Guzman-Fernandez, 824 F.3d 174 (1st Cir. 2016) (upholding variance where court distinguished defendant's conduct from typical Guidelines cases)
United States v. Santiago-Rivera, 744 F.3d 229 (1st Cir. 2014) (weighing of § 3553(a) factors is largely within sentencing court's discretion)
United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (framework for procedural and substantive reasonableness review)