United States v. Vargas-Davila
649 F.3d 129
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Vargas-Dávila pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute narcotics and was sentenced to 84 months’ imprisonment and 4 years’ supervised release.
- He began supervised release on October 6, 2006, and violated conditions less than halfway through the term.
- On January 13, 2009, the district court revoked supervised release and added 11 months’ imprisonment followed by a new 2-year supervised release.
- In May 2010, probation notified the court of additional violations, including unauthorized departure from Puerto Rico and failing to notify changes of residence; an arrest occurred May 7, 2010, and was followed by a revocation hearing.
- At the revocation hearing, Vargas-Dávila conceded violations and asked for a bottom-of-GSR sentence if supervision was revoked; the court imposed 24 months’ imprisonment, rejecting a GSR-based sentence.
- The court explained the decision by noting the appellant’s history of non-compliance and that the guidelines are advisory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 24-month revocation sentence is substantively reasonable | Vargas-Dávila argues for a sentence at the bottom of the GSR given the violations. | The district court reasonably rejected the GSR and tailored a longer sentence given non-compliance. | Within the universe of reasonable sentences. |
| Whether the court properly considered 3553(a) factors under 3583(e) | The court allegedly failed to consider relevant factors or misapplied them. | Court sufficiently considered factors including deterrence, public protection, and history of non-compliance. | Court properly weighed §3553(a) factors under §3583(e). |
| Whether the court impermissibly relied on information outside §3583(e) factors | Government’s statements about lack of respect for court orders were improper to consider. | Such considerations are permissible within incorporated §3553(a) factors. | No violation; the court could consider relevant §3553(a) factors. |
| Whether the court’s rationale was adequately explained | Maximum sentence justification was insufficiently explained in Franquiz-Ortiz context. | Record sufficiently explains the rationale and is not akin to Franquiz-Ortiz. | Record satisfactorily reveals basis and rationale. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (reasonableness is the standard for sentencing; not absolute)
- Madera-Ortiz, 637 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011) (procedural step in evaluating sentence under Gall)
- Jiménez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514 (1st Cir. 2006) (en banc; development of totality-of-circumstances approach)
- Dixon, 449 F.3d 194 (1st Cir. 2006) (enumerated §3553(a) factors incorporated by reference)
- Williams, 443 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2006) (incorporation of deterrence and non-technical considerations)
- Franquiz-Ortiz, 607 F.3d 280 (1st Cir. 2010) (vacated where record showed no explanation for maximum sentence)
- Eirby, 515 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2008) (statutory guidance for §3583(e) sentencing power)
- Anon. Deft., 629 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2010) (sentencing under advisory guidelines; need for plausible rationale)