81 F.4th 86
1st Cir.2023Background:
- Vaquerano pled guilty to one-count RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and admitted participating in the July 30, 2018 murder of Herson Rivas; he was 18 at the time of the offense.
- PSR set base offense level at 43 and applied a two-level U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4 enhancement for use/attempted use of a minor, producing an adjusted level of 45, then reduced to 42 for acceptance of responsibility (advisory range: 360 months to life).
- Vaquerano objected, arguing the Sentencing Commission exceeded its authority by applying § 3B1.4 to defendants under 21 (relying on United States v. Butler); he sought a 264-month sentence and submitted psychological evaluations about youthfulness and rehabilitation.
- The government sought 600 months, emphasizing Vaquerano’s leadership, recruitment/training of minors, and the brutality of the murder (and physical evidence tying him to the killing).
- The district court found the enhancement applicable based on Vaquerano’s recruitment and training of minors and allowed mitigation evidence about adolescent development; it imposed a 516-month sentence after considering § 3553(a) factors and Vaquerano’s age.
- On appeal the First Circuit affirmed: (1) the minor-use enhancement is valid as applied to defendants ages 18–21 and was properly applied to Vaquerano; and (2) the 516-month sentence was substantively reasonable.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4 for <21 offenders | Vaquerano: Commission exceeded Congress's directive (which referenced defendants 21 or older); enhancement inapplicable to 18-year-old | Government/District Ct: Commission validly exercised statutory authority and explicitly implemented Congress's directive in broader form; guideline applies to 18–20 | Enhancement valid as applied to ages 18–21; applied to Vaquerano |
| Substantive reasonableness of 516-month sentence | Vaquerano: Court failed to give adequate weight to youth/adolescent neuroscience and diminished culpability; sentence excessive | Government/District Ct: Court considered age and mitigating factors but reasonably emphasized brutality, leadership, prior attempts, deterrence, and public protection | Sentence within properly calculated guidelines and substantively reasonable; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (recognition of broad Sentencing Commission authority)
- LaBonte v. United States, 520 U.S. 751 (Commission's discretion must bow to specific Congressional directives)
- United States v. Butler, 207 F.3d 839 (6th Cir.) (holding § 3B1.4 inapplicable to defendants under 21)
- United States v. Ramsey, 237 F.3d 853 (7th Cir.) (upholding § 3B1.4 as applicable to 18–20-year-olds)
- United States v. Kravchuk, 335 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir.) (same conclusion on Commission authority and congressional inaction)
- United States v. Ferrarini, 219 F.3d 145 (2d Cir.) (Commission may rely on general statutory authority to adopt broader guideline)
- United States v. Corbett, 870 F.3d 21 (1st Cir.) (purpose of § 3B1.4 is to protect minors by enhancing sentences when minors are used)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing review standard: abuse of discretion and deference to district court’s judgment)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (juvenile sentencing precedents discussed but not extended to 18–20-year-olds)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (juvenile life-without-parole limits for non-homicide offenses referenced in reasoning)