United States v. Vázquez-Martínez, 812 F.3d 18

Vázquez pled guilty to one count of illegal possession of a machinegun under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o), 924(a)(2) after police found a modified AK-47 and a pistol in his residence.
Plea agreement linked with an adjusted offense level of 15; CHC was not stipulated, with conditional recommendations depending on CHC (I–II vs III+).
PSR proposed an adjusted offense level of 17 and CHC II, noting Vázquez’s prohibited-person status and history of drug use; juvenile and adult weapons convictions were noted.
Guideline range derived from PSR was 27–38 months (or 27–33 depending on calculations); the district court could consider a variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
At sentencing, the district court sentenced Vázquez to 60 months, outside the guideline range, based on deterrence, punishment, recidivism concerns, and the presence of firearms in a residence shared with three minor children.
Vázquez challenged procedural and substantive reasonableness, raising issues about the oral explanation, the written statement of reasons, and the length of the variance; the court affirmed the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the oral explanation adequate for an above-Guidelines sentence?	Vázquez argues the court failed to link factors to the sentence; the explanation was insufficient and unclear.	Vázquez contends plain error due to inadequate reasoning for departure.	No plain error; the explanation was adequate and the sequential process followed; reasoning could be inferred.
Was the failure to provide a written statement of reasons form reversible error?	Vázquez claims remand is required due to § 3553(c)(2) and § 994(w)(1)(B).	Government and court argue the error was harmless and the oral explanation sufficed.	Remand unnecessary; the district court’s oral explanation provided an adequate record; writing requirement treated as administrative here.
Is the sentence substantively reasonable under abuse-of-discretion review?	Vázquez contends 60 months is nearly double the top of the Guidelines range and unreasonable.	The district court properly weighed offense nature and offender characteristics to justify the variance.	The 60-month sentence is within a range of reasonable outcomes and substantively reasonable given the circumstances.
Did the appeal waiver or plea terms limit review of the sentence?	Argument about whether the plea agreement prevented appellate review.	District court sentence exceeded plea terms; review should proceed.	Courts may review sentences outside plea terms; the sentence was reviewable.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (guidelines as starting point in sentencing; procedural checks)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (sequential sentencing framework; consider factors before departure)
United States v. Zapote-García, 447 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2006) (when relying on a factor already in guideline calculation, justify why defendant differs)
United States v. Jiménez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514 (1st Cir. 2006) (reasoning can be inferred from record if explicit link not stated)
United States v. Tavares, 705 F.3d 4 (1st Cir. 2013) (written statement of reasons can be satisfied by incorporating transcript)
United States v. Millán-Isaac, 749 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2014) (written statement of reasons; importance of error but not per se reversible)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (invalidated mandatory-departure style; later amendments to §3553(c)(2))