United States v. Zayas-Rodriguez
675 F. App'x 6
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- On April 21, 2014 police stopped a car in Cayey, Puerto Rico; after a chase they detained William Zayas‑Rodriguez and observed a pistol partially under the front passenger seat. The car also contained drugs, ammunition, and $1,033 in cash.
- Zayas‑Rodriguez pled guilty to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug‑trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), which carries a 60‑month mandatory minimum and was the Guidelines’ advisory term.
- The plea agreement included a government recommendation of 60 months and dismissal of other charges; the district court accepted the plea.
- At sentencing the court, after considering 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the PSR (unchallenged by counsel), imposed a 70‑month sentence—an upward variance from the plea recommendation.
- Zayas‑Rodriguez appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness of the upward variance; the government conceded the appeal was not barred by the plea waiver because the court varied upward.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov.) | Defendant's Argument (Zayas‑Rodriguez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural: Court calculated criminal history/used data without notice | Court may consider defendant’s history and PSR facts under § 3553(a); no Chapter 4 Guidelines obligation for § 924(c) | Court extemporaneously calculated criminal history score without giving notice of data/methodology | No procedural error; court acknowledged Chapter 4 inapplicability and used history illustratively; no notice required for variance (Irizarry) |
| Procedural: Mischaracterization of prior conviction | Any mislabeling was immaterial to sentence because court relied on overall extensiveness of record | Court mischaracterized prior offense as "carjacking" rather than illegal appropriation | Harmless error; misunderstanding did not affect sentence outcome |
| Procedural: Consideration of community gun‑violence effects | Community deterrence and public‑safety concerns are permissible § 3553(a) considerations if tied to defendant | Court overemphasized community effects and not the individual | No abuse: court tied community concerns to defendant’s specific conduct (drugs + firearm) and other § 3553(a) factors |
| Substantive reasonableness: Upward variance magnitude | Sentence justified by defendant’s extensive criminal history and the serious combination of weapons and drugs | 70 months is substantively unreasonable relative to 60‑month recommendation | Sentence substantively reasonable; district court offered a plausible rationale and sensible result |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Flores‑Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (district courts may consider defendant’s history and community impacts under § 3553(a))
- Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (2008) (no advance notice required before an upward variance based on PSR facts)
- United States v. Alphas, 785 F.3d 775 (1st Cir. 2015) (harmless‑error analysis for sentencing misunderstandings)
- United States v. Pedroza‑Orengo, 817 F.3d 829 (1st Cir. 2016) (community‑based deterrence may justify variance if not focused solely on community)
- United States v. Pantojas‑Cruz, 800 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2015) (similar guidance on community considerations in sentencing)
- United States v. Narváez‑Soto, 773 F.3d 282 (1st Cir. 2014) (limits on overemphasizing community over individual factors)
- United States v. Politano, 522 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2008) (addressing permissible sentencing considerations)
- United States v. Carrasco‑de‑Jesús, 589 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (district court must articulate plausible rationale and arrive at sensible result)
- United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (discretion to weigh mitigating factors does not render a sentence unreasonable)
- Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193 (1992) (harmless error principles applicable to sentencing)
- United States v. Rivera‑González, 776 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2015) (upward variance removes appeal waiver barrier)
- United States v. Ruiz‑Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir. 2015) (noting uncertainty whether plain‑error or abuse‑of‑discretion review applies to unpreserved substantive reasonableness challenges)