United States v. Vega-Salgado
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19679
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Vega-Salgado, a prior felon, possessed a loaded 9mm pistol modified to fire automatically, plus two magazines and 38 rounds.
- Indictment for being a felon in possession of a firearm in the District of Puerto Rico.
- Non-binding plea agreement projected base offense level at 20, with a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility; CHC not determined, and parties agreed to mid-range sentence based on the eventual GSR.
- PSI increased base offense level to 26, adjusted to 23, assigned CHC VI, and set GSR at 92–115 months; no objections to the PSI.
- District court adopted the PSI calculations and imposed a 103-month mid-range sentence, despite the government's request for 56 months under the Agreement.
- Appellant appeals procedural and substantive challenges; the court affirms the sentence as reasonable within the properly calculated GSR.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the non-binding nature of the Agreement adequately explained? | Vega-Salgado argues improper disclosure of non-binding nature. | Salgado contends the court should have explained the Agreement's non-binding status. | No plain error; adequate disclosures were provided. |
| Did the court adequately explain rejection of the joint recommendation? | Appellant claims inadequate reasoning for rejecting 56-month joint recommendation. | Governments argues the court provided sufficient explanation within the range context. | Court provided a cogent explanation for the 103-month sentence within the GSR. |
| Did the district court properly consider 3553(a) factors? | Appellant asserts factors like rehabilitation were ignored. | Court stated it considered 3553(a) factors; argues within-range sentence reduces need for granular factor-by-factor discussion. | Court's consideration deemed adequate; explicit statement given weight. |
| Is the within-GSR sentence substantively reasonable? | Sentence too harsh given the circumstances and potential variance. | Within-range sentences are presumptively reasonable; district court did not abuse discretion. | Yes; 103-month sentence within properly calculated GSR is reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (procedural and substantive review standards for district court sentences)
- United States v. Leahy, 668 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2012) (clarifies de novo review of legal questions in sentencing)
- United States v. Fernández-Cabrera, 625 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (explains degree of explanation required for within-range sentences)
- United States v. Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2006) (limits on explaining why not to follow arguments at sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (within-range sentences given deference in reasonableness review)
- Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350 (Supreme Court per curiam 2009) (no presumption that GSR equals reasonable sentence)