Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Figueroa-Quinones, 1st Cir. (2016)
United States v. Figueroa-Quinones, 1st Cir. (2016)
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
THOMPSON,
Circuit
Judge.
Defendant-Appellant
Oscar
- 2 -
magazines.
Later,
he
consented
to
search
of
the
Figueroa
with
possession
with
intent
to
distribute
motion be granted.
magistrate
judge
recommended
that
the
- 3 -
presentence
investigation
report
("PSI
filed
sentencing
memorandum
report")
Thereafter,
highlighting
his
family
and
friends,
vouching
for
Letters from
his
character,
PSI
report
memorandum.
At
and
acknowledged
the
court's
receipt
invitation,
of
the
Figueroa
sentencing
offered
an
all
had
been
heard
- 4 -
from,
the
district
court
Then, after
went
on
to
describe
some
of
Figueroa's
personal
him,
and
expressly
indicated
it
had
considered
the
to
the
heightened
sentence
and
requested
- 5 -
United States v. King, 741 F.3d 305, 307 (1st Cir. 2014)
First, we
inquiring
reasonable.
into
whether
and
discretion.
sentence
is
substantively
the
substantive
for
abuse
of
- 6 -
and his cooperation with the government) and fixated too intensely
on the negative (the seriousness of the offense, the crime rate in
Puerto Rico, and deterrence and punishment considerations).4 Given
our standard of review, we cannot agree.
had
considered
declaration,
as
all
we
of
have
the
3553(a)
repeatedly
said,
factors.
"is
Such
entitled
a
to
clear
that
community-based
elements
and
the
need
for
And while
we have cautioned that a sentencing court must not focus "too much
on the community and too little on the individual" when it doles
- 8 -
- 9 -
to
certain
appropriate."
factors
that
the
[appellant]
thought
227 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 258 (2015); see also
United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588, 593 (1st Cir. 2011)
(explaining that "the weighting of [sentencing] factors is largely
within
the
court's
informed
discretion").
Here,
the
court
sentencing
discretion,
factors,
and,
weighed
its
in
the
end
analysis
and
in
its
contrary
to
Figueroa's preferences.
Moving on to the court's sentencing explanation, it,
too, we deem sufficient.
- 10 -
the district court are clear, and to the extent any ambiguity can
be found, whatever gap there may be in the court's reasoning is
filled by "comparing what was argued by the parties or contained
in the [PSR] with what the judge did.6
Cancel, 727 F.3d 85, 91 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v.
JimnezBeltre, 440 F.3d 514, 519 (1st Cir. 2006) (en banc)).
The bottom line is that we see no procedural error in
what the court did.
Substantive Reasonableness
That leaves Figueroa's substantive-reasonableness claim
-- that the court failed to adequately consider the arguments
advanced in favor of the recommended sentence and neglected to
perform an individualized assessment, instead focusing on the
firearms initiative and local murder rate.
"There is rarely, if
Santiago
- 11 -
United States v.
v. VegaSalgado, 769 F.3d 100, 105 (1st Cir. 2014) (omission and
alteration in original)).
The statute in play here clearly provides that anyone
who possesses a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime
"shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such . . . drug
trafficking crime . . . be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
not less than 5 years."7
18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
The 72-
- 12 -
the
chosen
sentence
inescapably
"resides
within
the
does
not
render
unreasonable.
it
--
by
that
fact
alone
--
substantively
Instead, a
King, 741
that test.
In
sum,
the
court
offered
sufficiently
persuasive
Figueroa's conduct
See id.
Conclusion
the sentence is
Affirmed.
- 13 -