United States v. Ubiles-Rosario
867 F.3d 277
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Kenneth Ubiles-Rosario recruited an accomplice (Negrón) to carjack and rob Luis Torres; after removing Torres at gunpoint at a cliff, Ubiles shot and killed him.
- Ubiles pled guilty to carjacking resulting in death; the government dismissed a firearm count under a plea agreement.
- Plea agreement stipulated to an offense level of 39 (parties acknowledged guideline level would otherwise be 40) and that both sides would recommend a sentence between 262–300 months; government reserved right to allocute for up to 300 months and to provide facts to probation/contest sentencing factors.
- Government filed a sentencing memorandum recommending 300 months and identified aggravating facts; at sentencing the court rejected the parties’ agreed offense level (used level 40), considered §3553(a) factors, and sentenced Ubiles to 365 months.
- Ubiles appealed claiming (1) the government breached the plea agreement by undermining its recommendation and emphasizing aggravating facts (including language "no less than 300 months"), and (2) the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable; the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ubiles) | Defendant's Argument (Government / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of plea agreement: government failed to honor recommendation to cap at 300 months | Govt paid only lip service to the 300-month recommendation, emphasized aggravating facts, and used "no less than 300 months" language that implied seeking a higher sentence | Govt repeatedly recommended 300 months in memorandum and at hearing, reserved right to present facts to court, and did not seek >300 months | No breach: totality shows govt consistently recommended 300 months and properly presented relevant facts to support that recommendation |
| Use of guidelines / treating them as mandatory | Court’s reliance on rejecting parties’ agreed offense level showed reflexive mandatory-guidelines thinking | Court explicitly stated it reviewed "advisory guideline calculations" and acknowledged guidelines are advisory | No error: court did not treat guidelines as mandatory |
| §3553(c)(1) and adequacy of explanation | Court failed to state its reasons in open court and did not adequately explain why 365 months was necessary (esp. given co-defendant’s 144-month sentence) | Court stated on the record that it considered the advisory GSR, multiple §3553(a) factors (offense gravity, deterrence, protection, defendant history), and later reiterated reasons in denial of reconsideration | No error: court gave adequate on-record reasons and identified main factors supporting the sentence; disparity with co-defendant explained by differing roles |
| Substantive reasonableness of 365-month sentence | Sentence overemphasized offense seriousness and guideline maximum, undervalued mitigating factors; parties’ plea balance warranted lower sentence | Sentencing court weighed factors and reasonably prioritized offense gravity, deterrence, punishment; 365 months is within the "universe of reasonable sentences" | Affirmed: sentence is substantively reasonable — plausible rationale and defensible result |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Marín-Echeverri, 846 F.3d 473 (1st Cir. 2017) (prosecutors held to meticulous standards in plea-agreement performance)
- United States v. Almonte-Nuñez, 771 F.3d 84 (1st Cir. 2014) (government must both honor plea terms and provide relevant information to sentencing court)
- United States v. Gonczy, 357 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2004) (breach where prosecutor’s argument undercut promised recommendation)
- United States v. Canada, 960 F.2d 263 (1st Cir. 1992) (prosecutor breached by not affirmatively recommending promised sentence and undercutting agreement)
- United States v. Cruz-Vázquez, 841 F.3d 546 (1st Cir. 2016) (distinguishes permissible presentation of facts from improper repudiation of plea terms)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (guidelines are advisory; sentencing courts must provide reasons)
- United States v. Lasalle González, 857 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2017) (§3553(c) requires in-court statement of reasons to permit meaningful review)
- United States v. Arsenault, 833 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing procedural and substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (furnishing facts to sentencing court generally permissible and not a breach)
- United States v. Rivera-Rodríguez, 489 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (government may emphasize facts supporting lawful plea-allowed recommendation)