United States v. Torres-Santana, 991 F.3d 257

Torres pleaded guilty in 2012 to being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); sentence: 30 months custody followed by 3 years supervised release; released to supervision Feb 2014.
Feb–Apr 2015: brief Commonwealth custody for child-support arrears; USPO filed a supervision violation motion but did not seek revocation; Torres released.
Dec 2015: arrested on state drug allegations; in May 2016 he pled guilty to Puerto Rico Controlled Substances Act Art. 406 (conspiracy/attempt) and received six years in state custody.
USPO filed a federal supervised-release violation motion June 2016; substantial delays followed (including court disruption after Hurricanes Irma/Maria); federal writ issued Apr 2017 but Torres was not taken into federal custody until Apr 26, 2018.
Revocation proceedings: magistrate initial appearance and waiver of preliminary hearing (Apr–May 2018); final revocation hearings Nov and Dec 2018. Torres conceded a violation but disputed whether it was Grade A or B for guideline purposes (affecting sentencing range).
Dec 2018: government relied on undercover agent’s affidavit, a video, and supervisory officer testimony (agent unavailable for safety). Court found a Grade A violation, revoked supervised release, and sentenced Torres to 18 months. Torres appealed, arguing unreasonable delay under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 and due process, claiming prejudice (lost state-parole opportunity and inability to confront the undercover agent).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of revocation hearing under Rule 32.1 / Due Process	Delay (30 months from petition, 20 months from warrant, 8 months from federal custody) violated Rule 32.1 and due process; relief = vacatur/dismissal; delay prejudiced parole prospects	Court delays partly due to Hurricanes; defendant did not timely move to expedite; no demonstrated prejudice from delay	Court assumed delay need not be decided; held Torres failed to show prejudice, so no relief
Right to confront undercover witness at sentencing portion	Absence of undercover agent denied opportunity for cross-examination and affected grade/classification (prejudice)	Government had good cause (agent’s safety); strong corroboration (video + supervising officer); hearsay admissible at revocation sentencing with sufficient indicia of reliability	Court held agent’s absence was justified and corroborating evidence overcame confrontation concerns; no prejudicial violation

United States v. Pagán-Rodríguez, 600 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2010) (holding that delayed revocation hearings require both unreasonableness and prejudice to warrant vacatur)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (speedy-trial four-factor framework; court explains it is not directly controlling for revocation delay claims)
Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1973) (noting pending charges can affect parole and rehabilitation considerations)
United States v. Rondeau, 430 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2005) (requirement to balance releasee’s limited confrontation right against government’s good cause)
United States v. Fontanez, 845 F.3d 439 (1st Cir. 2017) (reliability of proffered evidence can offset weaker reasons for denying live testimony)
United States v. Rodriguez, 336 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2003) (sentencing courts may rely on hearsay if it has sufficient indicia of reliability)
United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1978) (discussion of writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and detainer concepts)