United States v. Flores-Machicote , 706 F.3d 16 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •           United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 11-2243
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Appellee,
    v.
    VICTOR FLORES-MACHICOTE,
    Defendant, Appellant.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
    [Hon. José A. Fusté, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Lynch, Chief Judge,
    Souter,* Associate Justice,
    and Selya, Circuit Judge.
    Hector L. Ramos-Vega, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
    Supervisor, Appeals Division, with whom Hector E. Guzman, Jr.,
    Federal Public Defender, and Patricia A. Garrity, Assistant Federal
    Public Defender, were on brief, for appellant.
    Nelson Pérez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief,
    Appellate Division, with whom Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Velez, United
    States Attorney, and Julia M. Meconiates, Assistant United States
    Attorney, were on brief, for appellee.
    January 23, 2013
    ______
    * Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the Supreme
    Court of the United States, sitting by designation.
    SELYA, Circuit Judge.           After defendant-appellant Victor
    Flores-Machicote      entered     a    guilty      plea,    the    district    court
    sentenced him to five years in prison — a sentence well above the
    top of the applicable guideline sentencing range (GSR).                          The
    defendant appeals, asserting that the district court did not make
    an individualized assessment of the relevant sentencing factors
    but, rather, relied on impermissible considerations (including the
    perceived shortcomings of the local courts and the epidemic of
    violent street crime that has plagued Puerto Rico in recent times).
    After careful consideration, we reject the defendant's assertions
    and affirm the sentence.
    The background facts are uncomplicated.                A federal grand
    jury sitting in the District of Puerto Rico indicted the defendant
    on a single count of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon.
    See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).                     The charge carries a
    maximum term of imprisonment of ten years.                  See id. § 924(a)(2).
    The defendant pleaded guilty, and the probation department prepared
    a   presentence      investigation        report     (the    PSI    Report)     that
    recommended a GSR of 33 - 41 months.
    At the disposition hearing, the parties — pursuant to a
    nonbinding    plea    agreement       —    jointly    recommended      a    33-month
    sentence.    The district court abjured this joint recommendation,
    saying that such a sentence would be "irresponsible."                      The court
    instead imposed a five-year incarcerative term.
    -2-
    This timely appeal ensued. In it, the defendant does not
    contest the guidelines calculations contained in the PSI Report.
    Nevertheless, he challenges his sentence as both procedurally
    flawed and substantively unreasonable. Furthermore, he seeks to be
    resentenced before a different judge.
    We review criminal sentences imposed under the advisory
    guidelines regime for abuse of discretion.               See Gall v. United
    States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007); United States v. Martin, 
    520 F.3d 87
    , 92 (1st Cir. 2008).       Within this rubric, we assay the district
    court's    factfinding       for   clear   error   and     afford   de    novo
    consideration     to   its    interpretation   and   application     of   the
    sentencing guidelines.       See United States v. Walker, 
    665 F.3d 212
    ,
    232 (1st Cir. 2011).
    The defendant's core contention is that the district
    judge failed to make an individualized assessment of the relevant
    sentencing factors but, rather, relied mainly on impermissible
    considerations.    In support, the defendant draws our attention to
    certain statements made by the judge.          For the most part, these
    statements track two themes.         The first theme is composed of the
    judge's references to matters such as the perceived shortcomings of
    the local criminal justice system and the need to compensate for
    those shortcomings.      The second theme is composed of the judge's
    references to Puerto Rico's murder rate and other negative societal
    factors.   The defendant asseverates that the judge's espousal of
    -3-
    these themes resulted in a failure to treat him as an individual
    and fostered unwarranted sentencing disparity.                These bevues, in
    turn, led directly to the imposition of a higher than reasonable
    sentence.
    In   the   sentencing    context,     we   evaluate    claims     of
    unreasonableness in light of the totality of the circumstances.
    Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.        This path typically involves a two-step
    pavane.   First, we inquire into the existence of procedural errors
    "such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
    [GSR], treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
    the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on
    clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
    chosen sentence — including an explanation for any deviation from
    the Guidelines range."      Id.   Once we are assured that the sentence
    is not infected by procedural error, we then proceed to evaluate
    its substantive reasonableness.          Id.
    Appellate    review     of   federal    criminal      sentences    is
    characterized by a frank recognition of the substantial discretion
    vested in a sentencing court. Although the advisory guidelines are
    "the starting point and the initial benchmark," id. at 49, a
    sentencing judge may draw upon his familiarity with a case, weigh
    the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and custom-tailor an
    appropriate sentence, see Kimbrough v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 85
    ,
    109   (2007).     It    follows   that      a   "sentencing    court   may    not
    -4-
    mechanically       assume      that    the    GSR    frames the            boundaries           of   a
    reasonable sentence in every case."                        Martin, 520 F.3d at 91.
    Rather, the court must take a flexible, case-by-case approach: once
    the GSR is properly calculated, "sentencing becomes a judgment
    call"    involving       an    intricate      array      of    factors.              Id.   at    92.
    Consequently, punishment outside the GSR may be warranted in a
    particular        case   "to     serve     the      objectives            of    sentencing."
    Kimbrough, 552 U.S. at 91.
    When a court varies from the GSR, its reasons for doing
    so   "should       typically      be     rooted      either          in    the       nature      and
    circumstances       of    the    offense       or    the      characteristics              of    the
    offender."        Martin, 520 F.3d at 91.                  In such a situation, the
    factors deemed relevant by the sentencing court "must add up to a
    plausible rationale" for the sentence imposed and "must justify a
    variance of the magnitude in question."                       Id.
    Against      this    backdrop,         we     turn      to        the   defendant's
    assignments of error. We begin with the argument that the district
    judge,      in    fashioning       the       defendant's            sentence,         improperly
    considered shortcomings in Puerto Rico's local justice system —
    including its past treatment of the defendant.
    By     statute,      a      criminal        defendant's             "history        and
    characteristics" are among the considerations that a court ought to
    take into account at sentencing.                 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).                   As part
    of   this    inquiry,     a     sentencing       judge        may    consider         whether        a
    -5-
    defendant's criminal history score substantially underrepresents
    the gravity of his past conduct.         United States v. Lozada-Aponte,
    
    689 F.3d 791
    , 792 (1st Cir. 2012); Walker, 665 F.3d at 233-34; see
    USSG §4A1.3(a)(1).      A record of past arrests or dismissed charges
    may indicate "a pattern of unlawful behavior even in the absence of
    any convictions."      Lozada-Aponte, 689 F.3d at 792 (quoting United
    States v. Zapete-Garcia, 
    447 F.3d 57
    , 60 (1st Cir. 2006)) (internal
    quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Gallardo-Ortiz, 
    666 F.3d 808
    , 814-15 (1st Cir. 2012). Logic dictates that a sentencing
    court    may    similarly   consider    whether,   in   a    series   of   past
    convictions, the punishment appears to fit the crime. If the court
    concludes that an asymmetry exists which results in a substantial
    underestimation of the defendant's criminal history, it may vary
    the sentence upward to reflect past leniency.1              See United States
    v. Moore, 
    239 F. App'x 509
    , 512 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); see
    also USSG §4A1.3, comment. (backg'd.).
    It is true that, in the case at hand, the sentencing
    judge commented disapprovingly about what he perceived to be the
    habitual leniency of the local courts.             Seen in a vacuum, this
    perceived systemic shortcoming is not, in and of itself, a relevant
    1
    Our decision in United States v. Santiago-Rivera, 
    594 F.3d 82
     (1st Cir. 2010), is not to the contrary. There, we held only
    that a district judge may not "select[] a sentence for the sole
    purpose of controlling the running of an unrelated local sentence."
    Id. at 86. The defendant in this case does not claim that the
    district judge attempted to control the running of an unrelated
    local sentence.
    -6-
    sentencing factor.           Importantly, however, the judge did not stop
    there:      he   went   to     considerable       lengths   to    walk   through   the
    defendant's prior interactions with the law.                  The judge explained,
    in   some     detail,       why   he    believed   that     the   outcome   of   these
    interactions underrepresented the seriousness of the defendant's
    past criminal conduct. Specifically, he noted that the defendant's
    felony conviction for simple possession of heroin and cocaine had
    been reduced from a charge of possession with intent to distribute;
    three       other    arrests      for   controlled     substance     violations    had
    resulted in no punishment at all; and a prior conviction for
    illegal appropriation of a vehicle had resulted in only a six-month
    suspended sentence. In light of the conduct in which the defendant
    had engaged and how he fared before the local courts, we think that
    the district judge had some basis for referring to the earlier
    sentences as "slap[s] on the wrist."2                We also think that the judge
    reasonably could have concluded that one of the defendant's past
    arrests for distribution of controlled substances likely "[fell]
    through the cracks" when the local court found no probable cause to
    proceed       with    the    underlying      charge.        Having   reached     these
    conclusions, it was within the district judge's discretion to find
    that the defendant's criminal history score did not adequately
    2
    This was relevant because, the district judge observed, "had
    some Judge in the past been stronger with [the defendant] at the
    beginning, perhaps he would not be here today."
    -7-
    represent either the seriousness of his past criminal behavior or
    the likelihood of his recidivism.
    We add, moreover, that the district judge's focus on the
    defendant's criminal history belies the claim that the judge did
    not consider the defendant's case.     That focus unmistakably shows
    that the judge gave individualized attention to the defendant's
    situation.    See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50, 52.
    The defendant's next argument is that the district judge
    considered Puerto Rico's escalating murder rate and other local
    criminal trends and that this consideration was improper. The
    factual premise upon which this argument rests is solid; the record
    is pellucid that the judge commented repeatedly upon these points.
    Some examples follow.
    •        "What do you think that this gun that [the
    defendant] had illegally was to be used for? Was
    it to go to church and pray with or was it to
    kill people? What do you think these guns are
    for?"
    •        "When you have a society like Puerto Rican
    society, with over 800 murders — we are reaching
    900 already — where there are shootouts in the
    streets every day, killings car to car, where
    killings and beheadings are taking place in this
    island, I cannot look at an individual like this
    and not consider the social problem we have in
    the streets that's creating an ambiance where you
    cannot live in peace as a citizen."
    •        " . . . 84 percent of all murders in Puerto Rico
    occur with the use of firearms."
    •        "I think Puerto Rico [shouldn't] tolerate one
    more gun."
    -8-
    •            "It's an embarrassment.   I feel embarrassed to
    think we have the highest murder statistics in
    the whole United States."
    •            "We read it in the paper every day. People get
    killed in the middle of the street, shootings
    from car to car, all kinds of horrible, gun-
    related crimes happening. . . . [S]tatistics
    depict a picture of Puerto Rico that pretty soon
    people are not going to even want to come here to
    visit as tourists."
    Along somewhat the same lines, the district judge characterized the
    defendant's possession of a high-caliber weapon with a large-
    capacity magazine as "part of the problem" and declared "[t]hat's
    why we leave in the morning and we don't know whether we're going
    to come back alive in the afternoon."
    Even though the judge's comments contain some unnecessary
    rhetorical flourishes, the defendant paints with too broad a brush
    in   claiming    that     they    went   beyond   the   pale.    After   all,   a
    sentencing      judge    may     consider   community-based     and   geographic
    factors. See Lozada-Aponte, 689 F.3d at 793 (noting in dictum that
    sentencing judge's discussion of "incidence of crime in Puerto
    Rico" was a "permissible [sentencing] consideration[]"); United
    States v. Politano, 
    522 F.3d 69
    , 74 (1st Cir. 2008) (allowing
    sentencing court "to take into account all of the circumstances
    under which [the defendant] committed the offense, including the
    particular community in which the offense arose"); see also United
    States v. Cavera, 
    550 F.3d 180
    , 184 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc)
    (affirming imposition of upward variance on ground that GSR "failed
    -9-
    to take into account the need to punish more severely those who
    illegally transport guns into areas like New York City").     Within
    this taxonomy, it is permissible for a sentencing court to consider
    the incidence and trend lines of particular types of crime in the
    affected community. See United States v. Landry, 
    631 F.3d 597
    , 607
    (1st Cir. 2011).
    This makes good sense.   Deterrence is widely recognized
    as an important factor in the sentencing calculus.     See, e.g., 18
    U.S.C.   §    3553(a)(2)(B).    Community-based   considerations   are
    inextricably intertwined with deterrence, which aims to "prevent[]
    criminal behavior by the population at large and, therefore,
    incorporates some consideration of persons beyond the defendant."
    Politano, 522 F.3d at 74.       Put another way, the incidence of
    particular crimes in the relevant community appropriately informs
    and contextualizes the relevant need for deterrence.
    To illustrate, if a community is relatively free of
    violent crime, a sentencing judge reasonably may deem a violent
    crime aberrational and, thus, see no need for a heightened level of
    deterrence.     If, however, violent crime is running rampant, the
    judge reasonably may conclude that the need for deterrence is great
    — and this may translate into a stiffer sentence.
    The defendant tacitly acknowledges this framework, but
    insists that the district judge gave undue weight to the need for
    deterrence.      This plaint overlooks, however, that the section
    -10-
    3553(a) factors must be assessed in case-specific terms.         There is
    no   pat   formula   dictating   how   these   factors   interrelate.   A
    sentencing court has broad discretion to assay them and need not
    afford equal weight to each factor in a given case.            See United
    States v. Dávila-González, 
    595 F.3d 42
    , 49 (1st Cir. 2010); United
    States v. Dixon, 
    449 F.3d 194
    , 205 (1st Cir. 2006).               In this
    instance, we believe that the assignment of appreciable weight to
    the need for deterrence was adequately explained and, in the end,
    a reasonable choice.
    The judge discussed the need to promote respect for the
    law, explaining that Puerto Rico is "a jurisdiction where violent
    crime and gun related crime [are] so prevalent that it gets
    . . . embarrassing." In acknowledging the need "to afford adequate
    deterrence to criminal conduct," the judge stated:
    The word has to spread that this Court is
    going to be extremely harsh with defendants
    who conduct and carry out gun-related crimes.
    Recently there was an announcement by the
    Federal government that there are — they have
    reached into a stipulation with the local
    government whereby they are going to start
    filing all the gun cases in this Court.
    Simple reason for that, local courts are
    incapable of managing them.       And that's
    exactly what's going on.
    Sentencing judges are not automatons, and a judge is entitled to
    view certain types of crime as particularly heinous.           See, e.g.,
    Walker, 665 F.3d at 233.         Reviewing the sentencing record as a
    whole, we find that it was within the discretion of the court below
    -11-
    to place special emphasis on the deterrence factor and to explain
    that emphasis in the context of local trends.
    This is not to say that a sentencing court's emphasis on
    factors that are not specifically tied to either the offender or
    the offense of conviction — say, the perceived shortcomings of
    local courts or the incidence of particular crimes in a given
    locale — may not go too far.                A sentencing judge's resort to
    community-based characteristics does not relieve him or her of the
    obligation to ground sentencing determinations in case-specific
    factors.       See Politano, 522 F.3d at 74.             It is possible for a
    sentencing judge to focus too much on the community and too little
    on   the     individual     and,   thus,    impose   a   sentence    that   cannot
    withstand the test of procedural reasonableness.
    Here, however, the sentencing judge did not cross this
    line.      He directed individualized attention to the defendant's
    case, explicitly discussing the section 3553(a) factors as they
    related      to     the   defendant.        He   addressed    the    nature    and
    circumstances of the particular offense, its seriousness, and the
    need to provide condign punishment.              He also paid particular heed
    both    to    the    fact   that   the     defendant's   weapon     was   "a   nine
    millimeter, semi-automatic pistol with a high capacity magazine,"
    and to the defendant's likely recidivism. While the judge may have
    lingered longer than necessary on community characteristics, the
    -12-
    claim    that    he   did   not    give    individualized       attention   to   the
    sentencing determination is unfounded.
    The defendant's claim of procedural unreasonableness has
    one further dimension.        He asserts that his sentence reflects the
    judge's failure to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparity.                   See 18
    U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).        To begin, this argument was not advanced in
    the district court. It is, therefore, forfeited, and our review is
    for plain error.       United States v. Matos, 
    328 F.3d 34
    , 43 (1st Cir.
    2003).    In all events, we see no error, plain or otherwise.
    This assertion is premised on an ad hoc statistical
    analysis, through which the defendant strives to convince us that
    the sentencing judge routinely imposes uniquely harsh sentences.
    We are not persuaded.
    Defense counsel examined 25 cases prosecuted in the
    District of Puerto Rico in 2010-2011.              Based on this examination,
    the defendant suggests that his above-the-range sentence is a
    product of the sentencing judge's biases rather than permissible
    sentencing criteria.
    Statistical      evidence       that   fails   to    satisfy    minimum
    standards of reliability proves nothing.             Cf. Rathbun v. Autozone,
    Inc., 
    361 F.3d 62
    , 79 (1st Cir. 2004) (explaining, in disparate
    treatment       context,    that    statistical     evidence      must   "cross    a
    threshold of dependability").               So it is here.        In the sampled
    cases, the defendants were convicted of a variety of weapons
    -13-
    charges.      The sample size is unhelpfully small, the analytic
    methodology is quixotic, and the cases examined are not fair
    congeners.    The defendants within the cohort assembled by defense
    counsel    faced    diverse    charges,     had    varying     offense   levels,
    exhibited differing offense characteristics, and had dissimilar
    criminal histories.      Any disparities in sentencing outcomes may
    rationally be attributed to, say, differences in criminal history,
    the presence or absence of cooperation, or a myriad of other
    factors.     See, e.g., United States v. Saez, 
    444 F.3d 15
    , 18 (1st
    Cir. 2006); United States v. Washington, 
    187 F. App'x 3
    , 5 (1st
    Cir. 2006) (per curiam).            The defendant's statistical proffer
    accounts for none of these factors.
    Comparing apples to oranges is not a process calculated
    to lead to a well-reasoned result.                Because its foundation is
    porous, the defendant's claim of unwarranted sentencing disparity
    fails.
    Having determined that the claims of procedural error are
    untenable, we are ready for the second step of the pavane: the
    defendant's complaint that his five-year sentence is substantively
    unreasonable.
    In any given case, there is "a range of reasonable
    sentences."        Martin,    520   F.3d    at    92.     A   sentence   is   not
    substantively unreasonable merely because the reviewing court would
    have sentenced the defendant differently.               Id.   "[T]he linchpin of
    -14-
    a reasonable sentence is a plausible sentencing rationale and a
    defensible result."        Id. at 96.
    Here, the district judge's sentencing calculus centered
    on   the   seriousness     of    the   defendant's    criminal   conduct,   the
    defendant's past history and likelihood of recidivism, and the need
    for deterrence. This constituted a plausible rationale (albeit not
    one to the defendant's liking).            The lens of our inquiry narrows,
    therefore, to the length of the sentence imposed.
    In this regard, the defendant laments the fact that his
    sentence is well above the top of the GSR.              Where, as here, the
    district court imposes a sentence outside the GSR, a reviewing
    court must consider the extent of the variance.             See Gall, 552 U.S.
    at 51.     But even a substantial variance does not translate, ipso
    facto,     into   a    finding    that     the   sentence   is   substantively
    unreasonable.         See Gallardo-Ortiz, 666 F.3d at 811.         Everything
    depends on context.
    In this case, the upward variance is admittedly steep.
    Nevertheless, the offense conduct involved the possession of an
    extremely dangerous weapon, previously stolen in a home invasion.
    The defendant's criminal history is not insubstantial, and the
    prospect of recidivism is real.                  He has had the benefit of
    fortuitous procedural outcomes and gentle dispositions in past
    interactions with the legal system, but he apparently learned no
    lessons. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that a five-year
    -15-
    sentence — one half of the statutory maximum for the offense of
    conviction — is substantively unreasonable.
    We need go no further.3   For the reasons elucidated
    above, we uphold the defendant's sentence.
    Affirmed.
    3
    Because we have rejected the defendant's appeal on the
    merits, we need not consider his prayer that he be resentenced
    before a different judge.
    -16-