United States v. Torres-Rosario
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19481
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Police executed a search at 8 George Street, Apt. 1, New Bedford, MA, uncovering a loaded gun, Torres-Rosario's wallet, heroin, cocaine, cash, and drug paraphernalia.
- Torres-Rosario, in custody, waived Miranda rights and admitted the gun was his.
- He was charged with felon in possession of a firearm and, after trial, found guilty; sentenced to 226 months as an armed career criminal under ACCA.
- Torres-Rosario challenged §922(g)(1) as unconstitutional post-Heller and McDonald; district court record did not raise the issue below.
- GOV sought ACCA enhancement based on two controlled-substance felonies and three additional felonies; Holloway later limited MA assault convictions as ACCA predicates.
- During trial, government argued proximity of drugs and gun supported motive; closing argument and excluded evidence regarding Guerra’s possession were contested but ultimately upheld as proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ACCA predicate errors require reversal | Torres-Rosario contends Holloway invalidates MA assault convictions as predicates. | Government asserts prior drug offenses suffice; but potential wall due to Holloway unresolved at sentencing. | Plain error; remand for resentencing with proper predicate analysis |
| Whether the Holloway error warrants remand vs. outright dismissal | Remand preferable to avoid unjustly harsh sentence under ACCA. | Waiver of challenge should bar reconsideration; no prejudice to government anticipated on remand. | Remand permitted; issue reopened under Shepard constraints |
| Whether closing argument or evidence rulings were reversible errors | Ginscribed inference that Torres-Rosario was a drug dealer improperly personalized the case. | Argument was permissible; evidence of drug dealing motive supported the gun possession charge. | Closing argument not improper; excluded state-of-mind evidence was harmless |
| Whether the district court properly treated state convictions as ACCA predicates | Holloway invalidates certain MA convictions as predicates without limited evidence. | Existing precedents support treating them as predicates unless firmly disqualified. | Plain error under Holloway; remand for proper predicate showing |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (upheld presumptively lawful firearm restrictions for felons)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment rights against states)
- Holloway v. United States, 630 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 2011) (MA assault convictions not per se ACCA predicates post Johnson/Shepard)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (S. Ct. 2005) (limits use of certain prior convictions for sentence enhancements)
- Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1265 (U.S. 2010) (relevant to ACCA predicates and sentencing considerations)
- United States v. Pratt, 568 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2009) (government must show a violent crime predicate under ACCA with Shepard constraints)