United States v. A.R. ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 21-1700
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
A.R.,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Gelpí, Lynch, and Montecalvo,
Circuit Judges.
Joanna E. LeRoy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, with whom
Eric Alexander Vos, Federal Public Defender, Franco L. Pérez-
Redondo, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Supervisor, Appeals
Section, and Alejandra Bird-López, Research and Writing
Specialist, were on brief, for appellant.
Gregory B. Conner, Assistant United States Attorney, with
whom W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, and Mariana E.
Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate
Division, were on brief, for appellee.
September 14, 2023
GELPÍ, Circuit Judge. A.R., born in 2003, was
adjudicated delinquent in a proceeding under the Federal Juvenile
Delinquency Act ("FJDA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5042, pursuant to his
admission of aiding and abetting an attempted robbery of a motor
vehicle (Count One) and five carjackings (Counts Two through Six),
all of which would have been a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1)
and (2) had he been an adult. The district court ordered A.R.
detained in a juvenile institution until he reaches twenty-one
years of age, followed by a term of juvenile delinquent
supervision.
A.R. primarily challenges the district court's order of
a detention period rather than a probationary one. Specifically,
A.R. posits that the district court erred in: (1) making an
incorrect -- but unobjected to -- comment at the admission hearing
that a substantial assistance motion from the government would be
necessary in order to consider A.R.'s cooperation; (2) ordering a
Presentence Report ("PSR"), as requested by his trial counsel,
instead of a "comprehensive study" as provided for in the FJDA,
see 18 U.S.C. § 5037(e); and (3) considering and improperly
weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in its disposition.
Additionally, A.R. claims that the district court erred in failing
to recommend that A.R. be placed in a local detention facility.
Separately, the government and A.R. agree that the district court
- 2 -
erred in imposing a term of detention and supervision that together
exceeded the applicable statutory maximum.
After careful review, we affirm the district court as to
its imposition of detention rather than a probationary period.
However, we remand to the district court the last two matters.
I. Background
Relevant Facts
The events giving rise to this case date back to late
2019 and early 2020, when A.R. had not yet reached his eighteenth
birthday and he committed a sequence of carjackings alongside
another then-minor ("L.R.") and an adult, Erick De Jesús-Torres
("De Jesús").
December 20, 2019: The First Carjacking
On the night of December 20, 2019, L.R. requested an
Uber ride for the trio from the Manuel A. Pérez public housing
project in San Juan to Carolina, two cities in Puerto Rico. The
Uber driver arrived in a blue Toyota C-HR. A.R. and L.R. sat in
the back, while De Jesús sat in the passenger seat. Once at their
destination, De Jesús stopped the Uber car's engine as L.R. exited
the vehicle and, holding a weapon, opened the driver's door and
told him to get out of the car. The Uber driver complied, and the
trio, after searching his pockets, drove the Toyota C-HR back to
the Manuel A. Pérez public housing project. Later that night, the
three went for a ride in the stolen vehicle and were involved in
- 3 -
an accident. They fled the scene afoot.
December 23, 2019: The Second Carjacking
Three days after the first carjacking, L.R. requested an
Uber ride for the same trio from the Ernesto Ramos Antonini public
housing project in San Juan. The Uber driver arrived in a white
Hyundai Accent and took them to some location, which from the
record cannot be adduced. Once there, De Jesús stopped the
vehicle's engine while L.R. took the driver out of the car,
searched the driver, seized from her $350 in cash, and left her
there, with A.R. driving the trio to the Manuel A. Pérez public
housing project in the Hyundai Accent. L.R. and De Jesús then
went out for a ride in the carjacked vehicle while A.R. remained
at L.R.'s apartment.
December 31, 2019: The Third Carjacking
New Year's Eve did not stop the trio from further
wrongdoing. Again at the Manuel A. Pérez public housing project,
L.R. requested an Uber ride. A driver in a red Hyundai Elantra
picked them up and took them to their specified location. Upon
arrival, De Jesús stopped the vehicle's engine, exited, and walked
around the car. He opened the driver's door and told the driver
to get out. The victim reported that the trio gestured as though
they had a weapon, but he did not actually see it. L.R. searched
the driver and got into his seat. The three carjackers then drove
back to the housing project, leaving the driver behind.
- 4 -
Night of January 2-3, 2020: Attempted Carjacking and Two
New Successful Carjackings
At approximately 10:40 p.m. on January 2, 2020, A.R.,
L.R., and De Jesús requested an Uber ride from a location near the
Plaza Escorial Mall in Carolina. A female driver picked them up
in her blue Kia Soul and drove them to their drop-off location.
Upon arrival, De Jesús stopped the vehicle's engine while L.R.
held what appeared to be a firearm to the driver's neck.
Defiantly, the driver refused to exit the car. L.R. unbuckled the
driver's seatbelt, while De Jesús took her cellphone and ordered
her to unlock it. The driver told them that they could shoot her
but she was not going to let go of her car. Right after, L.R.
struck the driver in the face and ordered her not to look at him.
A struggle ensued as she grabbed the steering wheel while both
A.R. and L.R. again struck her several times in an attempt to
remove her from the vehicle. The driver started honking the
vehicle's horn repeatedly, and the trio eventually fled on foot
towards a nearby bowling alley with $120 in cash taken from the
driver and her cellphone.
At the bowling alley, a friend of L.R. called them an
Uber ride. An Uber driver arrived in a white Hyundai Accent and
drove them to their specified location (undisclosed in the record).
When they arrived, De Jesús stopped the car's engine, while L.R.
stepped out, took the driver out of the car, searched him, and
- 5 -
returned to the back seat. A.R. moved to the driver's seat, drove
to Plaza Carolina Mall, and parked the carjacked vehicle near a
restaurant.
From there, L.R. requested another Uber ride for the
group. This time a black Toyota Yaris picked them up. At some
point during the trip, L.R. ordered the Uber driver to make a U-
turn. The driver complied. Immediately, L.R. told the driver to
get out of the car while pointing a pellet gun at the driver's
head. The driver exited his vehicle. After frisking the Uber
driver, L.R. sat in the back seat and A.R. again drove the trio
back to Plaza Carolina Mall.
The Arrest
Meanwhile, around midnight on January 3, 2020, the Uber
driver of the blue Kia Soul utilized the "Find my iPhone"
application, which showed her that her stolen cellphone was located
in the Plaza Carolina Mall parking lot. At approximately 12:30
a.m., she went to the mall with a friend who was a Carolina
Municipal Police Officer ("CMPO"). Upon their arrival, the driver
spotted A.R., L.R., and De Jesús, who had just dropped off the
stolen black Toyota Yaris and were then standing outside a
restaurant. The driver identified them as the subjects who
attempted to carjack her hours earlier. The CMPO announced himself
as a police officer and issued commands to the trio, which were
not obeyed. L.R. pointed a pistol at the CMPO, got in one of the
- 6 -
stolen cars, and drove off. A.R. and De Jesús fled on foot. The
CMPO chased them, intercepted De Jesús, and attempted to arrest
him. A struggle ensued, in which De Jesús grabbed the CMPO's
firearm, firing a round that struck De Jesús in the torso. The
CMPO was also injured in the struggle. De Jesús and A.R. fled,
and the CMPO pursued them in his vehicle. Both were ultimately
arrested.1
Later on January 3, FBI Task Force Agents interviewed
both A.R. -- in the presence of his mother -- and De Jesús. A.R.
admitted to attempting to carjack the Uber driver of the blue Kia
Soul using a fake firearm. A.R. also admitted to committing the
three carjackings on December 20, 23, and 31, 2019, and the two
carjackings following the attempted carjacking of the blue Kia
Soul with De Jesús and L.R.
Legal Proceedings
That same day, on January 3, 2020, the government filed
a juvenile information2 charging A.R. with attempted carjacking,
The record does not indicate whether the CMPO himself
1
arrested De Jesús and A.R., or if other police officers were
involved.
Although our past precedents have stated that "[f]ederal
2
intervention in juvenile proceedings [wa]s [at one point] rare,"
United States v. Patrick V., 359 F.3d 3, 5 (1st Cir. 2004), "[t]he
rise in serious juvenile crime, the contraction of state juvenile
court jurisdiction, and the expansion of federal criminal law have
all contributed to the increased prevalence of federal delinquency
proceedings," Charles Doyle, Cong. Rsch. Serv., RL30822, Juvenile
- 7 -
which had he been an adult would have amounted to a violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 2119(1) and (2). The government filed a certification
to proceed under the FJDA by asserting a "substantial federal
interest in the case . . . due to the violent nature of the crime
affecting interstate commerce." See 18 U.S.C. § 5032. The
government simultaneously filed a motion to transfer A.R. for
prosecution as an adult. See id. After a magistrate judge ordered
A.R. detained,3 he began to cooperate with the government, which
ultimately included, among other acts, testifying before a grand
jury. Given A.R.'s cooperation, the government eventually
declined to press its motion to transfer his case for prosecution
as an adult.4
On April 5, 2021, the government filed a juvenile
superseding information charging A.R. with the attempted
carjacking (Count One) and five additional carjackings (Counts Two
to Six) that he committed along with De Jesús and L.R.
Delinquents and Federal Criminal Law: The Federal Juvenile
Delinquency Act and Related Matters 1 (2023).
3 The FJDA permits the detention of a juvenile. See
18 U.S.C. § 5035.
4 Under the FJDA, certain transfers to adult status for
prosecution are mandatory while others are discretionary. See 18
U.S.C. § 5032.
- 8 -
Juvenile Proceedings Terminology
In juvenile delinquency proceedings the precise legal
terminology used differs from that of adult criminal proceedings.
Because we shall employ that same terminology, it is important to
briefly explain the terms used in this opinion. Juveniles do not
"plead guilty" to "crimes," but rather "admit" to conduct. The
analogy to a change of plea hearing is called an admission hearing.
Likewise, juveniles are not sentenced, but rather undergo a
disposition.5 See 18 U.S.C. § 5037. Moreover, juveniles are not
found "guilty" but rather "adjudicated delinquent." And,
following release from a detention disposition, they may be placed
in "juvenile delinquent supervision" rather than "supervised
release." Id. Notwithstanding, the terms "plea agreement" and
"probation" are used just as in adult proceedings.
The Admission Hearing
On May 18, 2021, A.R. admitted to the conduct described
in all six counts pursuant to a plea agreement. Under the
agreement, the district court could use the Sentencing Guidelines
to determine the upper limit in setting the term for which A.R.
could be committed to juvenile detention. See 18 U.S.C. § 5037.
5We note, however, that even the Congressional Research
Service used "sentencing" and "disposition" interchangeably when
discussing the FJDA in a 2023 report. See generally Doyle, supra
n.2; see also United States v. M.R.M., 513 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2008)
(using terms interchangeably).
- 9 -
The plea agreement set forth maximum penalties under 18 U.S.C.
§ 5037(c)(1). By the time the parties entered into the plea
agreement, A.R. had turned eighteen, thus his maximum penalties
were to be determined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5037(c)(2). Neither
party contests this conclusion. Although both parties requested
that the district court impose a probationary term, the agreement
provided that the district court was not bound by that
recommendation and had discretion to sentence him otherwise. As
a supplement to the plea agreement, A.R. also entered into a
cooperation agreement with the government.
During the colloquy that took place at the admission
hearing the district court made two statements that are
inapplicable to juvenile proceedings under the FJDA. First, the
district court stated that A.R.'s admission "may deprive [A.R.] of
some rights," and specifically that he would not be "able to hold
public office; . . . serve on a jury; . . . possess any kind of
firearm; . . . [and] may even lose [his] right to vote." A.R.'s
counsel immediately corrected the district court, noting that
because "this is a juvenile delinquency case, [A.R.] will not be
adjudged as a felon, and those deprivation of rights will not and
should not apply to him." The district court struck that portion
of the colloquy. No party disputes that this statement was
incorrect, and A.R. does not argue that this statement in isolation
was error.
- 10 -
Second, the district court stated that it could consider
A.R.'s cooperation with the government in determining his sentence
"only" if the government filed a substantial assistance motion.
No party corrected the district court during the admission hearing
or at any point after. No party disputes that this statement was
incorrect.
Following A.R.'s admission to the six counts of the
juvenile superseding information, the district court ordered the
Probation Office to prepare a PSR. A.R.'s counsel did not object
to the directive that a PSR be prepared.
The PSR recounted the string of carjackings that led to
A.R.'s detention. It further explained that pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 5037(c)(2), a term of official detention may not extend "beyond
the lesser of: (A) 5 years; or (B) the maximum of the guideline
range, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994, applicable to an otherwise
similarly situated adult defendant unless the court finds an
aggravating factor to warrant an upward departure from the
otherwise applicable guideline range." Accordingly, the PSR
included a guideline sentencing range ("GSR") calculation to
determine the maximum detention applicable. The PSR concluded
that the applicable GSR was 97 to 121 months.
Prior to the disposition hearing, A.R. filed what was
titled his "sentencing memorandum." As explained supra, in
juvenile proceedings, the correct terminology is "disposition
- 11 -
memorandum." A.R.'s memorandum emphasized his cooperation -
- which contributed to a juvenile adjudication and sentence,
respectively, of L.R. and De Jesús -- and his potential for
rehabilitation. He also emphasized that, given his cooperation,
the government agreed to recommend a disposition of probation.
The Disposition Hearing
On August 17, 2021, the district court conducted A.R.'s
disposition hearing. The district court acknowledged and thanked
A.R.'s counsel for the disposition memorandum. Counsel then
expressed that A.R. had shown "exceptional progress" since being
detained at a Commonwealth operated facility in Villalba, Puerto
Rico, where counsel stated that he had availed himself of every
educational and counseling opportunity that was offered. The
district court clarified that, although A.R. was now eighteen and
could be adjudicated as an adult, it was treating him as a minor
given the delays in proceedings due to the COVID-19 pandemic.6
6 We note that the district court stated -- incorrectly, in
the absence of proceedings to try A.R. as an adult -- that A.R.
was "now an adult and can be sentenced as an adult." Even if a
juvenile turns eighteen (and has not reached twenty-one) by the
time the disposition hearing takes place, proceedings are covered
by the FJDA given that the statute governs law violations
"committed by a person prior to [their] eighteenth birthday." 18
U.S.C. § 5031(emphasis added). In other words, turning eighteen
does not otherwise turn the juvenile into an adult for purposes of
the FJDA. But see United States v. Soto-Beníquez, 356 F.3d 1, 23-
24 (1st Cir. 2003) (holding adult could be tried for conspiracy
crimes that began before his eighteenth birthday where defendant
joined conspiracy as a minor but "ratified his participation after
he had turned eighteen").
- 12 -
Both parties asked the district court to follow the plea
agreement's recommendation of probation until A.R. turned twenty-
one, in approximately three years.
The district court first explained that the Sentencing
Guidelines do not apply to juvenile proceedings save that Section
1B1.12 of the Sentencing Guidelines and, in accord with that
section, stated that "[t]he sentence imposed upon a juvenile
delinquent may not exceed the maximum of the guideline range
applicable to an otherwise similarly situated adult defendant."
Here, the GSR for an adult similarly situated would be from 97 to
121 months.
The district court next recounted both A.R.'s personal
characteristics and the modus operandi of the carjackings,
acknowledging that A.R. had timely accepted responsibility, and
recognized that both parties had recommended a term of probation
until A.R. turned twenty-one. The district court disagreed with
said recommendation, stating it fell short of reflecting the
seriousness of the offense, promoting respect for the law, and
protecting the public from further crimes. It further found that
the recommendation failed to address the issues of deterrence and
punishment:
After evaluating the specific circumstances of
this case, [A.R.'s] participation in the
carjackings, the impact that those carjackings
had on the victims, who could have easily
- 13 -
perceived that they were being threatened to
death with a firearm, even though the weapon
used was a pellet gun, as their vehicles,
which they used to work and generate income,
were stolen from them by [A.R.] and his co-
defendants, and the increase of the offenses
involving carjackings to Uber drivers in
Puerto Rico, the [district court] finds that
a sentence of juvenile detention is necessary
to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in
[18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)].
The district court ultimately adjudicated that A.R. be
detained until he reached 21 years of age -- a term of detention
the court calculated in its written judgement as forty-two months
and three days -- followed by seventeen months and twenty-seven
days of juvenile delinquent supervision, as indicated in the
judgment. No fine was imposed.
Finally, the district court inquired of A.R.'s counsel
if he had in mind any juvenile institution so as to permit the
court to issue a recommendation for A.R.'s placement. Counsel
replied that he would like the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to keep
A.R. in Villalba, Puerto Rico. The district court explained that
Villalba was not under a BOP contract and, therefore, it would
recommend A.R. to be designated to a BOP contracted facility.
At the end of the disposition hearing, A.R.'s counsel
objected to both the procedural and substantive unreasonableness
of the disposition, emphasizing his view that the district court
- 14 -
had disregarded mitigating factors and failed to credit A.R.'s
cooperation. This timely appealed followed.
II. Discussion
An early case in this circuit on juvenile delinquency
proceedings under the FJDA is United States v. Patrick V., 359
F.3d 3, 5 (1st Cir. 2004). Generally, juveniles apprehended and
processed by federal authorities for armed robbery or carjacking
are subject to proceedings for transfer to adult status pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 5032. See United States v. Smith, 178 F.3d 22, 26
(1st Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 910 (1999). Here, the
government -- to A.R.'s benefit -- did not seek to transfer A.R.
to adult status, and so we briefly describe the governing statute
for juvenile delinquency proceedings, the FJDA, before discussing
the merits of A.R.'s arguments.
The FJDA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5042, governs the treatment
of juveniles who are charged in federal court with violating
federal criminal laws. See 18 U.S.C. § 5032. The FJDA defines
"juvenile" to be a "person who has not attained [their] eighteenth
birthday, or for the purpose of proceedings and
disposition . . . a person who has not attained [their] twenty-
first birthday." 18 U.S.C. § 5031. The FJDA is designed with
leniency and rehabilitation in mind but the goal of rehabilitation
"has increasingly shared the stage with [the other] goals of the
criminal process." Patrick V., 359 F.3d at 10; see also United
- 15 -
States v. R.L.C., 503 U.S. 291, 298 n.2 (1992) ("We do not think
a broader congressional purpose points clearly in either party's
direction" -- that is, neither toward nor away from rehabilitation
as a goal).
FJDA proceedings are "marked by a duality of
objectives -- that of rehabilitation and that of protecting
society." Patrick V., 359 F.3d at 9. The FJDA provides for a
district court to consider a juvenile's "personal traits, his
capabilities, his background, any previous delinquency or criminal
experience, any mental or physical defect, and any other relevant
factors." 18 U.S.C. § 5037(e). This information can be gathered
from what the FJDA labels a complete study. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 5037(e). With this in mind, we turn to the case at hand.
At his disposition hearing, A.R. objected to both the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of his disposition. On
appeal, however, he does not specify whether his arguments are
directed to procedural and/or substantive reasonableness. Whether
labeled procedural or substantive, the first set of A.R.'s
challenges fail. The corresponding safeguards in adult
proceedings provide that "[w]here challenges are to the procedural
and substantive reasonableness of a [disposition], our review
process is bifurcated: we first determine whether the
[disposition] . . . is procedurally reasonable and then determine
- 16 -
whether it is substantively reasonable." United States v. Flores-
Quiñones, 985 F.3d 128, 133 (1st Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).
1. Detention and Supervised Release Calculation
We agree with A.R. and the government that the district
court erred in calculating the term of juvenile detention and
subsequent supervision because it exceeds the FJDA's statutory
maximum of five years pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5037. Accordingly,
the case must be remanded for the district court to correct the
miscalculations.
The relevant FJDA provision explains that:
(d)(1) The court, in ordering a term of
official detention, may include the
requirement that the juvenile be placed on a
term of juvenile delinquent supervision after
official detention.
(2) The term of juvenile delinquent
supervision that may be ordered for a juvenile
found to be a juvenile delinquent may not
extend--
(A) in the case of a juvenile who is less
than 18 years old, a term that extends
beyond the date when the juvenile becomes
21 years old; or
(B) in the case of a juvenile who is
between 18 and 21 years old, a term that
extends beyond the maximum term of
official detention set forth in section
5037(c)(2)(A) and (B), less the term of
official detention ordered.
18 U.S.C. § 5037(d)(1), (2) (emphasis added). Likewise, the
statute explains that the official term of detention for a juvenile
- 17 -
who, like A.R., is between eighteen and twenty-one years old, may
not exceed the lesser of five years or the maximum of the guideline
range applicable to a "similarly situated adult defendant unless
the court finds an aggravating factor to warrant an upward
departure." 18 U.S.C. § 5037(c)(2). Here, the maximum period of
detention is five years.
In its written judgment, the district court ordered a
term of detention "until [A.R.] reaches 21 years of age (that is,
for a term of 42 months and 3 days)" and from then, a term of
juvenile delinquent supervision of "17 months and 27 days, pursuant
to [18 U.S.C. § 5037(d)(2)(B)]." The district court miscalculated
the total amount of time that will transpire from A.R.'s detention
until he turns twenty-one. The total amount of time is not 42
months and 3 days, but rather, 49 months and 17 days. This
inadvertent miscalculation thereby tainted the accuracy of the
juvenile delinquent supervision term. If allowed to stand, A.R.
would essentially be "sentenced" to around 67 months and 14 days
(49 months and 17 days plus 17 months and 27 days), which exceeds
the maximum five-year period authorized by the FJDA. Such a
miscalculation simply cannot stand. We thus remand for the
district court to enter an amended judgment with the correct
calculations as to the juvenile detention and delinquent
- 18 -
supervision terms.7 See United States v. Procell, 31 F.4th 32, 39
(1st Cir. 2022).
2. Challenges to Detention
a. The Court's Statements About Substantial Assistance
Motion
A.R. first contends that the district court, not at the
disposition hearing, but at the admission hearing, incorrectly
stated as part of the admission colloquy that a substantial
assistance motion from the government was necessary for it to
consider A.R.'s cooperation as a mitigating factor in its
disposition. From this statement, he makes the further argument
that the district court incorrectly disregarded the "critical and
significant assistance" provided to the government. As noted
supra, neither party objected to that statement or corrected the
district court judge during the admission hearing or after. Three
months separated the admission hearing from the disposition
hearing, and neither party argues that the district court said or
did anything at the disposition hearing to suggest that it still
7 A.R. asserts that "there is at least a reasonable
probability that a district judge would have opted for a shorter
detention period in order to maintain a robust period of [juvenile
delinquent supervision] to transition [A.R.] back into a
law-abiding life" and that error requires reconsidering the
disposition in its entirety. We are unpersuaded by this argument.
In its oral pronouncement, the district court was clear in its
intention of placing A.R. in juvenile detention until his 21st
birthday.
- 19 -
believed a substantial assistance motion was necessary for it to
consider A.R.'s cooperation.
He further maintains that the district court should have
articulated how it considered his cooperation and acknowledged the
same in its disposition. While the government agrees that the
district court incorrectly stated at the admission hearing that a
substantial assistance motion was necessary,8 it points out that
the district court did in fact consider A.R.'s cooperation in its
disposition. Moreover, the government points out that there is no
indication in the record that the district court felt constrained
by the lack of a substantial assistance motion in considering
A.R.'s cooperation. Rather, the record evidences that the district
court indeed did articulate its awareness of his cooperation and
assistance in determining its disposition.
We agree that the district court's observation at the
admission hearing noting that it required a substantial assistance
motion from the government to consider A.R.'s cooperation was
indeed incorrect. United States v. Landron-Class, 696 F.3d 62, 77
(1st Cir. 2012). But the district court soon, in effect, corrected
the error and A.R. suffered no harm.
8 At oral argument, the government admitted that it did not
correct the district court when it indicated that the government
must file a substantial assistance motion.
- 20 -
Careful examination of the record demonstrates that the
district court did take A.R.'s cooperation into account. At A.R.'s
disposition hearing, the district court acknowledged reading
A.R.'s disposition memorandum, which painstakingly recounted
A.R.'s immediate admission of responsibility and cooperation with
the government (which ultimately led to the indictment and
information, followed by a guilty plea and admission from his
aiders and abettors, De Jesús and L.R., respectively). Likewise,
the district court was well aware that the government and A.R. had
jointly recommended probation instead of detention, given his
cooperation. The district court also acknowledged that "[A.R.]
timely accepted responsibility for his offense" and noted that
this led to his offense level being reduced. Moreover, it noted
that it had "evaluat[ed] the specific circumstances of this case"
(the victims involved, the impact on them, that they were at the
time working) when explaining its disposition.
b. PSR Versus Comprehensive Study
A.R. on appeal asks us to disregard his position in the
district court and find that the district court plainly erred in
ordering a PSR instead of a comprehensive study pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 5037(e), which pertinently provides that "[i]f the court
desires more detailed information concerning an alleged or
adjudicated delinquent, it may commit him . . . for observation
- 21 -
and study by an appropriate agency."9 At the outset, this claim
was not preserved in the district court. "Even more fatal to
[A.R.'s] contention is . . . that he not only did not object: he
affirmatively agreed." United States v. Chen, 998 F.3d 1, 9 (1st
Cir. 2021); see also United States v. Ruiz-Valle, 68 F.4th 741,
745-46 (1st Cir. 2023). A.R.'s trial counsel indeed supported the
preparation of a PSR: "I know the Court wants a [PSR], and I think
that that would be very helpful for everyone." Hence, A.R. cannot
now claim that the district court erred in doing what he
affirmatively agreed to. See Ruiz-Valle, 68 F.4th at 745-46;
United States v. Serrano-Delgado, 29 F.4th 16, 29 (1st Cir. 2022).
Accordingly, we find that this argument has been waived. Chen,
998 F.3d at 9.
c. Section 3553(a) Factors
A.R. next posits that the district court erred in
"mak[ing] [the § 3553(a) factors] the primary focus of its
[disposition]." A.R. contends that the district court should have
emphasized his rehabilitation over the seriousness of his offense,
just punishment, respect for the law, and deterrence so as to stay
aligned with the purpose of the FJDA. The government maintains
that A.R.'s position is waived because he advocated below for
9There is no meaningful difference between a PSR and a
predisposition report (comprehensive study). See Patrick V., 359
F.3d at 6.
- 22 -
consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, which he now challenges.
We, however, construe A.R.'s claim differently from the
government. A.R. is not arguing that the district court should
not have considered the § 3553(a) factors, but instead that they
were afforded excessive weight. Because A.R.'s counsel objected
to the "excessive weight" given to the factors "already taken into
account in the sentencing guidelines" (the § 3553(a) factors) at
the disposition hearing, we find this statement sufficient to give
notice to the district court of A.R.'s objection. See Ruiz-Valle,
68 F.4th at 746. We thus review for abuse of discretion, see
United States v. Melendez-Rosado, 57 F.4th 32, 37-38 (1st Cir.
2023), and find none.
"The legal atmosphere of the [FJDA] is marked by a
duality of objectives -- that of rehabilitation and that of
protecting society." Patrick V., 359 F.3d at 9. In keeping with
that duality of objective, Patrick V. rejected the argument,
embraced by other circuits, that the district court must select
the least restrictive disposition that would achieve
rehabilitation. Id. at 11-12; see also United States v. M.R.M.,
513 F.3d 866, 869 (8th Cir. 2008) (joining our circuit in rejecting
a least-restrictive disposition requirement). Careful examination
of the record indicates that the district court precisely
emphasized these very objectives in its disposition. At the
disposition hearing, the district court stated that the
- 23 -
recommended action by the parties -- probation -- "d[id] not
reflect the seriousness of the offense, does not promote respect
for the law, does not protect the public from further
crimes . . . , and does not address the issues of deterrence and
punishment." These, along with rehabilitation, are factors under
§ 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Here, as in Patrick V., "the court felt that real
acceptance of responsibility entailed some detention." 359 F.3d
at 11. The district court explicitly considered the need to
"protect society" when it described the specific circumstances
that influenced its disposition: A.R.'s participation in
carjackings at gunpoint, including the fact that the trio pointed
a pellet gun at a female victim's head, who also sustained bodily
injuries during the offense; the economical and emotional impact
on the victims, whose stolen property -- their cars -- were their
means of working and generating income; the fact that the victims
could easily have perceived they were being threatened with death;
and the danger to public safety from an increased number of
carjackings of rideshare drivers in Puerto Rico. M.R.M., 513 F.3d
at 869 ("Nothing in the statute precludes the district courts from
giving due consideration . . . to protection of the public or
deterrence.").
As discussed supra, the district court was well aware of
A.R.'s cooperation and his acceptance of responsibility. The
- 24 -
district court further considered and prioritized rehabilitation
by recommending that A.R. participate in a job placement program,
vocational training, GED courses, and mental health treatment, if
necessary while detained. Indeed, "rehabilitation, with the
growth of youth violence, has increasingly shared the stage with
the goals of the criminal process." Patrick V., 359 F.3d at 10.
Thus, after analyzing and evaluating all that was before it, the
district court felt that "real acceptance of responsibility
entailed some detention." Id. at 11. All this cuts against A.R.'s
argument that the district court placed improper weight on
§ 3553(a) factors. We thus conclude that the district court did
not commit procedural error.
For the same reasons, A.R.'s argument that the term of
juvenile detention was substantively unreasonable lacks merit. We
review for abuse of discretion. Flores-Quiñones, 985 F.3d at 133.
Here, the totality of the record supports a finding that a period
of juvenile detention followed by a term of juvenile delinquent
supervision was warranted given the circumstances of the case and
the need to both rehabilitate and protect society. See Patrick
V., 359 F.3d at 11-12; United States v. A.S., 939 F.3d 1063, 1085
(10th Cir. 2019). A judge adjudicating a juvenile disposition
"should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [they
have] considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis
- 25 -
for exercising [their] own legal decision[-]making authority."
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).
As discussed supra, the totality of the record is clear
as to the district court's examination of A.R.'s cooperation. Cf.
United States v. Muñoz-Fontanez, 61 F.4th 212, 214-15 (1st Cir.
2023). "There is not the slightest reason to think that the
district court overlooked [A.R.'s cooperation]." United States v.
Cortés-Medina, 819 F.3d 566, 571 (1st Cir. 2016). In the end,
however, the district court understood A.R.'s conduct necessitated
detention rather than probation. Thus, we discern no abuse of
discretion in the district court's failure to explicitly
acknowledge mitigation. See Patrick V., 359 F.3d at 8. ("[T]he
task of reconciling the various considerations involved in the
disposition of a juvenile . . . is one that demands a wide range
of discretion[.]"). We thus find no abuse of discretion.
3. Concerns About A.R.'s Juvenile Facility Placement
2,000 Miles From His Family
A.R. next challenges the district court's failure to
recommend Villalba -- a state juvenile facility where A.R. had
been detained pending his disposition -- as the local juvenile
institution for his post-disposition detention.
The FJDA provides for special rules for juveniles. That
is, pursuant to an adjudication of delinquency, a juvenile shall
- 26 -
be committed under the custody of the Attorney General,10 who shall
place the juvenile in an appropriate facility. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 5039. Such a "facility must provide the juvenile not only the
necessities of life, but 'counseling, education, training, and
medical care . . . or other care and treatment.'" Patrick V., 359
F.3d at 12 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 5039). Further, "[w]henever
possible, the Attorney General shall commit a juvenile to
a . . . facility located in or near his home community." 18 U.S.C.
§ 5039.
Here, the exchange between the district court and A.R.'s
counsel on the location of his detention post-conviction was brief.
The district court asked his counsel if there was any juvenile
institution that counsel would like the district court to
recommend. In reply, counsel requested placement at the Puerto
Rican facility Villalba, stating earlier that "[A.R.] has made
exceptional progress since being at Villalba for the
past . . . year and a half [a]nd . . . has availed himself to
every opportunity, be it educational, counseling, opportunities to
work closely with a social worker."
10Here, the district court committed A.R. to the custody of
the Bureau of Prisons. A.R. argues that it was error for the
district court to commit him to that agency's custody rather than
the custody of the Attorney General directly, as named in the
statute. Because the Bureau of Prisons is housed within the
Department of Justice, however, A.R. was in fact committed to the
Attorney General's custody when he was committed to the Bureau of
Prisons.
- 27 -
The district judge responded: "I don't know if [BOP]
can do that. It's got to be one that is under [BOP's] contract,
and I don't think Villalba is, so I will recommend that [A.R.] be
designated to a juvenile institution under contract with the
[BOP]." Counsel did not disagree. Indeed, it appears the district
court was correct.
At the outset, we note that A.R. has not cited, nor have
we identified, any statute that requires a federal juvenile court
to recommend a detention facility when committing a juvenile
delinquent to the custody of the Attorney General for a term of
official detention. In fact, the provision of federal criminal
law which authorizes the BOP to consider a sentencing court's
recommendation as to placement in the adult context, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3621, is not incorporated into the FJDA despite the fact that
the FJDA explicitly incorporates other provisions of federal
criminal law. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 5037(c) (incorporating 18
U.S.C. § 3624). For that reason, we believe a court imposing a
term of official detention on a juvenile delinquent may, in its
discretion, but is not required to, issue a recommendation as to
facility placement.
Our decision in Patrick V. noted the tension between a
potential recommendation from the court and the commitment of the
juvenile to the custody of the Attorney General given "our
recognition that placement is ultimately the responsibility of the
- 28 -
Attorney General." 359 F.3d at 13 n.5. Patrick V. involved a
juvenile who was also ordered detained pursuant to the FJDA after
a finding that he committed arson causing extensive property
damage. As such, he was to be placed in juvenile detention for
thirty months, followed by juvenile delinquent supervision for
twenty-seven months. Id. at 7. Like the facts before us today,
Patrick V.'s disposition hearing was "bereft of any information
concerning the facility chosen for [his] detention -- its
location, policies, and programs available to juveniles in [his]
situation." Id. at 12. While at his disposition hearing, Patrick
V.'s counsel inquired about the appropriateness of the detention
facility where Patrick V. might be sent, speculating that he might
be sent somewhere far where he would not receive rehabilitation,
there appeared to be no further discussion on the subject. Id.At oral argument on his appeal, we learned that Patrick V. was
ultimately sent to a state facility in Pennsylvania, 550 miles
from Patrick V.'s home in Maine. See id.Ultimately, we found ourselves "uncomfortable with [the]
state of the record," noting that "[o]ur task is to try to strike
a balance between the responsibilities of a court arriving at the
disposition of a juvenile matter and the exclusive authority of
the Attorney General to determine the facility of detention in any
case." Patrick V., 359 F.3d at 13. As such, we held that because
"[a] district judge has wide discretion in determining whether any
- 29 -
or how much detention . . . should be imposed on a juvenile[,]
[a] rational exercise of that decision requires at the minimum a
realistic understanding of the location and nature of probable
detention facilities available to the government." Id. The record
being bereft of these details, this Court remanded the case to the
district court after concluding that neither we nor the district
court had sufficient information about where Patrick V. would serve
his juvenile detention, and the nature of the services such
facility offered -- facts which we thought were relevant to the
district court's disposition. See id. at 12-14.
Here, we are troubled by the fact of Puerto Rico's island
status and location in the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 1,000
miles from the nearest point in the U.S. mainland, that being the
state of Florida. Hence, A.R.'s detention, unlike that of Patrick
V., poses additional challenges insofar as proximity to his home
community, which is a matter for the Attorney General to consider.
At oral argument A.R.'s counsel stated that A.R., who does not
speak English, is currently being housed at a juvenile detention
facility in Texas, which we note is approximately 2,000 miles from
Puerto Rico.11 We think it appropriate on remand for the government
11 We take judicial notice that in 1994 Puerto Rico's
institutionalized juvenile population -- subject to a federal
consent decree -- was approximately 2,000. Over the years, it has
dwindled and, as of March 2023, was 62. See Fed. Monitor's First
Q. Rep. for 2023 at 25-26, United States v. Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, (No. 94-2080), ECF No. 1938.
- 30 -
to provide more information as to the options available for his
detention, to permit the district court to make a recommendation.
We do not understand the government to argue that, on remand, the
court lacks discretion in this area.
III. Conclusion
A.R.'s disposition is both procedurally and
substantively reasonable. For the foregoing reasons, the district
court's disposition is AFFIRMED. We REMAND to the district court
to correct the term of juvenile detention and subsequent delinquent
supervision, to hear from the government as to A.R.'s placement,
and to make a recommendation as to that placement if the district
court so chooses.12
So ordered.13
12 Wedeny A.R.'s request that the case be reassigned on remand
to a new judge. See United States v. Castillo-Torres, 8 F.4th 68,
73 (1st Cir. 2021).
13We caution district courts and attorneys to be mindful of
the terminology they use in federal juvenile delinquency
proceedings, as they each must adhere to the language set forth in
the FJDA, the purpose of which is "to enhance the juvenile system
by removing juveniles from the ordinary criminal justice system
and by providing a separate system of 'treatment' for them."
United States v. Juvenile, 347 F.3d 778, 785 (9th Cir.
2003)(internal citations omitted).
- 31 -