United States v. Guzman-Montanez , 808 F.3d 552 ( 2015 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 14-1944
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
MARCELINO GUZMAN-MONTANEZ,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Lipez, and Kayatta,
Circuit Judges.
Eric Alexander Vos, Federal Public Defender, District of
Puerto Rico, Vivianne M. Marrero, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Supervisor, Appeals Section, and Liza L. Rosado-
Rodriguez, Research and Writing Specialist, on brief for
appellant.
Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Velez, United States Attorney, Nelson
Pérez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate
Division, and Susan Z. Jorgensen, Assistant United States
Attorney, on brief for appellee.
December 22, 2015
LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Marcelino Guzman-Montanez was
convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm after being
arrested in circumstances that, as the district court found,
suggested an "obvious intention of committing an armed robbery."
In a previous appeal, we vacated one count of conviction and
remanded for resentencing. United States v. Guzmán-Montañez, 756
F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2014). On appeal from resentencing, Guzman-
Montanez challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness
of his upwardly variant sentence. We affirm.
I.
The facts underlying this case are set forth in detail
in our previous opinion. Id. at 3–5. On March 14, 2012, a
restaurant owner in Bayamón, Puerto Rico, alerted the police after
turning away two suspicious customers, one of whom appeared to be
carrying a gun. Descriptions of the men and their car were
broadcast over police radio in connection with the event,
characterized as an attempted robbery. Police patrolling the area
saw two men who matched the description enter a fast food
restaurant, with the man later identified as Guzman-Montanez
carrying a black pistol in his waistband. When marked police cars
arrived, Guzman-Montanez quickly left the food-ordering line and
entered the bathroom. As Guzman-Montanez left the bathroom, police
entered the restaurant and apprehended both men. Guzman-Montanez
was no longer carrying a gun in his waistband at that time, but
- 2 -
the police searched the bathroom and found a loaded pistol in the
diaper changing station.
On March 28, 2012, Guzman-Montanez was indicted on one
count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and one count of possession of a firearm in
a school zone, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). On July
18, 2012, Guzman-Montanez was convicted of both counts after a
three-day jury trial.
The presentence report (PSR) grouped the two counts into
a combined offense level because the counts involved the same
victim and the same act or transaction. U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1.1,
3D1.2(a). The PSR recommended a combined base offense level of
14, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(6). A two-level enhancement
for the stolen firearm yielded a total offense level of 16.
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A). The PSR noted that Guzman-Montanez had
been convicted in 2001 of illegal appropriation of a vehicle,
robbery, carjacking, and unlicensed possession of a firearm, and
that he had served a suspended sentence. However, those prior
convictions counted for zero criminal history points because the
sentences for those prior convictions were imposed more than ten
years before the instant offense. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e). Based on
a total offense level of 16 and a criminal history category of I,
the guideline sentencing range was 21 to 27 months of imprisonment.
The government sought an upward departure or variance to produce
- 3 -
a sentence of 72 months of imprisonment. Citing Guzman-Montanez's
criminal history and the nature of the offense, the district court
imposed an upwardly variant sentence of 60 months of imprisonment.
On June 13, 2014, we reversed the conviction on count
two on the basis of insufficient evidence that Guzman-Montanez
knew or reasonably should have known that he was in a school zone.
Guzmán-Montañez, 756 F.3d at 10–12. We affirmed the conviction on
count one and remanded for resentencing. Id. at 12.
At resentencing, the district court again imposed an
upwardly variant sentence of 60 months of imprisonment. The
district court reasoned, as it had before, that Guzman-Montanez's
criminal history was "substantially underrepresented" and that at
the time of the instant offense, he had the "obvious intention of
committing an armed robbery."
II.
In sentencing appeals, we first review claims of
procedural error, applying de novo review to questions of law, a
clear error standard to factfinding, and an abuse of discretion
standard to judgment calls. United States v. Fernández-Garay, 788
F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2015). We then review substantive
reasonableness for abuse of discretion. Id.Guzman-Montanez argues that the district court committed
procedural error by not explaining why it again imposed a 60-month
sentence on resentencing. He suggests that because the reversed
- 4 -
conviction for possessing a firearm in a school zone required a
consecutive sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(4), the original 60-month
sentence must have included a term exclusive to the reversed count.
He claims that because his sentence was not reduced by some
unspecified portion of the original sentence that was tied
exclusively to the dismissed school zone charge, the sentence he
received on resentencing was effectively harsher than the original
sentence. He argues that the district court did not explain why
it was giving what he calls a harsher sentence and that, if
anything, his record of good prison behavior since the original
sentencing should have resulted in a more lenient sentence.
However, the reversal of the school zone charge did not
change the applicable base offense level, the criminal history
category, or the resulting guideline sentencing range. Nor did
the school zone charge have any mandatory minimum sentence that
was lifted as a result of our court's prior decision. 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(a)(4). Hence, we cannot presume that the prior sentence for
possession of a gun by a felon was itself for less than 60 months.
The district court took all the steps necessary to
properly explain the sentence it imposed. The district court began
by correctly calculating the guideline sentencing range and then
clearly stating on the record that it had considered the sentencing
factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v.
Arroyo-Maldonado, 791 F.3d 193, 199 (1st Cir. 2015). The district
- 5 -
court then briefly described Guzman-Montanez's background and
explained that, taking into consideration the "violent nature" of
his previous state convictions and the way the instant offense
signaled the possibility of "further violent acts" in the future,
his criminal history was "substantially underrepresented" in the
guideline sentence. The district court concluded that an upwardly
variant sentence was appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, to protect the public, to deter, and to punish. That
explanation was adequate even considering that a substantial
deviation from the guidelines requires a more significant
justification than a slight deviation does. United States v.
Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 91 (1st Cir. 2008). "While the court
ordinarily should identify the main factors upon which it relies,
its statement need not be either lengthy or detailed" or "precise
to the point of pedantry." United States v. Turbides-Leonardo,
468 F.3d 34, 40 (1st Cir. 2006).
Guzman-Montanez also argues that the sentence was
substantively unreasonable in light of the fact that he had a clean
record for more than ten years until the instant conviction, and
that he had a clean disciplinary record in prison since the time
of the first sentencing. However, given the nature and seriousness
of the offense, particularly the danger of violence to the public,
there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's
determination that an upward variance was warranted. Because "a
- 6 -
sentencing court is not required to address frontally every
argument advanced by the parties," it was not error that the court
did not specifically address Guzman-Montanez's clean disciplinary
record in prison. Id.III.
We affirm.
- 7 -