United States v. Vazquez
2017 WL 1405031
1st Cir.2017Background
- Law enforcement searched Vázquez’s home and four vehicles and found cocaine, crack, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, two loaded assault rifles, a loaded pistol, and over 150 rounds of ammunition; drugs and ammunition were in plain view and a toddler lived in the home.
- Vázquez pled guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances (21 U.S.C. § 841).
- Plea agreement recommended 60 months for the § 924(c) count (statutory minimum) and either 37 months (defense) or 60 months (Government) for the drug count; sentences to run consecutively.
- District court calculated Guidelines ranges (60 months for Count 1; 33–41 months for Count 5), but varied upward on Count 1 to 84 months based on the seriousness of firearms possession, ammunition, and presence of a child; imposed 41 months on Count 5 (within Guidelines), for a total of 125 months consecutive.
- Vázquez appealed, arguing procedural error (failure to consider upbringing, overreliance on deterrence/community crime statistics, failure to address sentencing disparity) and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court procedurally erred by not considering Vázquez’s upbringing | Gov: sentencing was procedurally sound | Vázquez: court refused to consider his upbringing as mitigating | Court: No error; court considered upbringing but gave greater weight to offense facts |
| Whether upward variance was improperly based primarily on general deterrence/community crime | Gov: variance justified by §3553(a) factors including community context | Vázquez: variance rested improperly on deterrence and Puerto Rico crime statistics | Court: No; variance grounded in case-specific factors (weapons, ammo, child); community statistics only contextual |
| Whether district court failed to address sentencing disparity argument | Gov: court considered Government’s and defense’s arguments | Vázquez: court did not adequately explain rejection of disparity comparators | Court: No abuse; court heard arguments, considered memorandum, and reasonably distinguished cited comparators |
| Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable | Gov: sentence reasonable given aggravating facts and near-government recommendation | Vázquez: sentence excessive given background and plea expectations | Court: Sentence within "expansive universe" of reasonable sentences; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arroyo-Maldonado, 791 F.3d 193 (1st Cir. 2015) (standard of review for sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Ortiz-Rodríguez, 789 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2015) (objection/forfeiture and role of community crime statistics in sentencing)
- United States v. Flores–Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (community crime rates inform need for deterrence)
- United States v. Torres-Landrúa, 783 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2015) (deference to district court’s consideration of §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (reasonable sentence requires plausible rationale and defensible result)
- United States v. Pedroza-Orengo, 817 F.3d 829 (1st Cir. 2016) (review limited where district court’s rationale is within discretion)
- United States v. King, 741 F.3d 305 (1st Cir. 2014) (framework for substantive-reasonableness review)
- United States v. Pantojas-Cruz, 800 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2015) (upholding sentence where aggravating facts support result)