United States v. Vazquez-Martinez
812 F.3d 18
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- In August 2013 police, acting on information, searched Vázquez’s apartment with consent and found a pistol and an AK-47 modified to fire fully automatically; Vázquez admitted possession and pled guilty to unlawful possession of a machinegun under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o), 924(a)(2).
- Plea agreement stipulated an adjusted offense level of 15 (Guidelines 18–24 months at CHC I) and set recommended sentences depending on Criminal History Category; it did not stipulate Vázquez’s CHC.
- The PSR increased the offense level to 17 because Vázquez was a prohibited person (based on admitted heavy drug use) and calculated a CHC II (juvenile weapons convictions, revoked probation, 20 months’ juvenile detention), producing a Guidelines range of 27–33 months.
- At sentencing the district court adopted the PSR, reviewed § 3553(a) factors (offense circumstances, criminal history, drug use, children in residence) and sentenced Vázquez to 60 months—above the Guidelines range; Vázquez objected to substantive reasonableness and appealed.
- On appeal Vázquez argued the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable: procedurally because (a) the district court’s oral explanation for the upward variance was inadequate and (b) the court failed to file the written § 3553(c)(2)/§ 994(w) statement of reasons; substantively because the 60-month term was nearly double the Guidelines maximum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Vázquez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of oral explanation for above-Guidelines sentence | District court sufficiently followed procedure, recited facts and § 3553(a) factors, and its rationale can be inferred from the record | District court’s oral justification was cursory, failed to link facts to the variance, and thus was inadequate (plain-error review) | No plain error; court’s sequential consideration and recitation of facts and § 3553(a) factors permitted inference of adequate reasoning |
| Failure to file written statement of reasons form under § 3553(c)(2)/§ 994(w) | Absence harmless because oral explanation sufficed and court would have imposed same sentence; form is largely administrative | Written form absence is error that requires remand | Harmless error; remand not required because oral record shows court would have imposed same sentence |
| Use of factors already accounted for in Guidelines to justify variance | District court relied on additional factors (probation revocation, quick recidivism, firearm kept with minors) beyond those in Guidelines | District court impermissibly relied on criminal history and drug use already in Guidelines | Variance upheld; district court relied on permissible extra-Guidelines considerations demonstrating risk of recidivism and offense seriousness |
| Substantive reasonableness of 60-month sentence | Above-Guidelines sentence reasonable given offense circumstances and defendant’s recidivism risk | 60 months is nearly double the Guidelines max and therefore substantively unreasonable | Sentence affirmed as within the broad range of reasonable outcomes under abuse-of-discretion review |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (district court must calculate Guidelines, treat them as a starting point, consider § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (First Circuit on procedural steps and sliding-scale justification for variances)
- United States v. Zapata-Vázquez, 778 F.3d 21 (source for facts in guilty-plea appeals)
- United States v. Jiménez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514 (inference of district court reasoning from record)
- United States v. Millán-Isaac, 749 F.3d 57 (written statement of reasons requirement and review standards)
- United States v. Tavares, 705 F.3d 4 (harmlessness of written reasons omission when transcript suffices)
- United States v. Del Valle-Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 171 (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Santiago-Rivera, 744 F.3d 229 (deferential review of variances; reasons rooted in offense or offender characteristics)
- United States v. Zapete–García, 447 F.3d 57 (judge must articulate why an already-accounted factor supports a variance)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (context on statutory changes and appellate review of sentences)