United States v. Villanueva-Lorenzo

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 14-1260
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
MIGUEL VILLANUEVA LORENZO,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. José Antonio Fusté, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Kayatta, Lipez, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
Carlos R. Noriega on brief for appellant.
Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Velez, United States Attorney, and
Nelson Pérez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief,
Appellate Division, on brief for appellee.
September 23, 2015
LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Appellant Miguel Villanueva Lorenzo
was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment, an upward variance from
the applicable recommended Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months,
following his guilty plea to a charge of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute controlled substances. Appellant
challenges the variance, arguing that the district court
misapplied 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) by (1) failing to take into account
his personal history and characteristics and focusing exclusively
on his criminal record, and (2) erroneously inflating his sentence
in an effort to counteract what it perceives as lax sentencing in
the local Puerto Rico court system. Finding no merit to
appellant's contentions, we affirm.
I.
Appellant served as a leader of a drug trafficking
organization that conspired to distribute a variety of controlled
substances at El Cotto public housing project in Arecibo, Puerto
Rico.1 In his role in the conspiracy, appellant supervised the
distribution of crack cocaine, cocaine, marijuana, oxycodone, and
1
Since appellant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement,
we derive the facts from the plea agreement, the change-of-plea
colloquy, the unchallenged portions of the presentence
investigation report, and the sentencing hearing transcript.
United States v. Ocasio–Cancel, 727 F.3d 85, 88 (1st Cir. 2013).
- 2 -
Xanax. He received proceeds from the distribution of narcotics
and he carried firearms in order to protect the drug distribution
points at the housing project.
In March 2013, a grand jury indicted appellant, along with
forty-four co-defendants, for: conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1), 846, and 860 (Count One); and aiding and abetting
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, cocaine,
marijuana, and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 860
and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Counts Two - Five).
In October 2013, appellant pled guilty to Count One of the
indictment pursuant to a plea agreement. The parties stipulated
that, for sentencing purposes, appellant would be treated as having
a total offense level of 33, as determined under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.
The parties did not stipulate as to appellant's Criminal History
Category ("CHC"), but assumed he was in CHC III. The applicable
Guidelines range was determined to be 168 to 210 months.
The parties agreed that appellant would request a sentence of
168 months if the CHC was I, II or III, but would request the lower
end of the applicable range if the CHC was IV. The government
reserved the right to recommend 198 months if appellant fell in
categories I through IV, and agreed to recommend the lower end of
- 3 -
the applicable range if appellant fell in CHC V or VI. The court
calculated appellant's CHC as III. After a sentencing hearing,
the district court imposed a sentence of 240 months, followed by
eight years of supervised release.
Appellant timely appealed his sentence,2 arguing that the
district court erred in failing to appropriately review the
§ 3553(a) factors when it sentenced him to 30 months in excess of
the upper end of the applicable Guidelines range. Specifically,
appellant argues that the district court failed to give sufficient
weight to his character and personal history, and placed undue
weight on his criminal history. He contends that the court erred
in failing to consider that he is a "great father" with
"rehabilitation potential" and that he "self[-]surrendered when he
realized that the agents were looking for him." He additionally
argues that the district court's comments during sentencing, along
with public comments the court has made in the past, suggest that
the court erroneously inflated his sentence in an effort to offset
lenient sentences imposed in the local courts.
2Although appellant's plea agreement included a waiver of
his right to appeal, this provision is inapposite because the
district court's sentence deviated from the parties'
recommendations. See United States v. Fernández-Cabrera, 625 F.3d
48, 51 (1st Cir. 2010).
- 4 -
II.
A. Legal Principles
We review federal criminal sentences imposed under the
advisory Guidelines for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Madera-Ortiz, 637 F.3d
26, 30 (1st Cir. 2011). Typically, our review of a sentence
imposed under the Guidelines involves a two-step process. "First,
we evaluate the procedural soundness of the sentence; second, we
assay its substantive reasonableness." Madera-Ortiz, 637 F.3d at
30. The "procedural dimension" of sentencing review includes the
correctness of the court's application of the Guidelines, while
"[t]he substantive dimension focuses on the duration of the
sentence in light of the totality of the circumstances." United
States v. Del Valle-Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 171, 176 (1st Cir. 2014).
Procedural errors amounting to an abuse of discretion include
"failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines
range, 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." Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
- 5 -
Following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we
have delineated the sequence of steps sentencing courts should
follow under an advisory guidelines regime:
[A] sentencing court ordinarily should begin
by calculating the applicable guideline
sentencing range; then determine whether or
not any departures are in order; then mull the
factors delineated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as
well as any other relevant considerations;
and, finally, determine what sentence, whether
within, above, or below the guideline
sentencing range, appears appropriate.
United States v. Pelletier, 469 F.3d 194, 203 (1st Cir.
2006).
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), a sentencing court must
consider the following factors when imposing a sentence:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the
offense and the history and characteristics of
the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed--
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, to promote respect for the law, and
to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to
criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further
crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed
educational or vocational training, medical
care, or other correctional treatment in the
most effective manner;
(3) the kinds of sentences available;
(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing
range established . . .
(5) any pertinent policy statement--
- 6 -
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence
disparities among defendants with similar
records who have been found guilty of similar
conduct; and
(7) the need to provide restitution to any
victims of the offense
When a sentencing court imposes an above-the-Guidelines
sentence, "it must justify the upward variance." Del Valle-
Rodríguez, 761 F.3d at 176. An upward variance "may be justified
by, say, a finding that the defendant's criminal history score
underrepresents the gravity of his past conduct." Id.
B. Analysis
1. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors
Our review of the record reveals that the district court
adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors in determining
appellant's sentence, taking into account both his personal
history and his specific role in the conspiracy. When it imposed
its 240-month sentence, the court noted:
When you look at the 3553(a) factors, and you look
at how that section tells you that you have to
consider the nature of the crime, the impact that
the crime has on the community . . . how the
disposition of the case is going to deter or not
deter future crimes, things of the sort, all these
factors, I'm not mentioning them one by one, all of
them point to me the fact that when you have a
picture like the one that I see in this Presentence
Report, a non-guideline sentence has to be utilized
to deal with this issue.
- 7 -
The court then added:
I am not making a departure. I cannot tell you
that I can find a particular departure ground,
because I would be inventing it. I don't think
it fits squarely into the peg holes of any
particular guideline disposition for
departure. But I do think that when you see
the overall picture here, he does fit the
pattern of a potential variance to adjust the
numbers to the reality of what the case is
about. I will sentence him to 240 months, and
I will place him on supervised release for
eight years.
In its explanation of appellant's sentence, the district
court emphasized appellant's particularized role in the
conspiracy, noting that he "could have easily, easily have been
portrayed as a leader, organizer, manager [of the conspiracy]
whatever you want to call it, with a lot more than two points
within the calculation. He could have easily been determined to
be a three or a four, but he was only given a two[-level increase
for his leadership role]."
Contrary to appellant's contention, the district court did
not ignore his personal circumstances. Rather, the court
explicitly noted appellant's age, seventh grade education,
documented history of substance abuse beginning in his teens, lack
- 8 -
of mental health issues,3 and the "grim" prospects he faced born
of two drug-addicted parents. The court thus made clear it was
aware of appellant's personal history and characteristics. If the
court "weighed those factors less heavily than [appellant] would
have liked," that judgment was within its discretion. United States
v. Rivera-González, 776 F.3d 45, 50 (1st Cir. 2015); see also
United States v. Carrasco-De-Jesús, 589 F.3d 22, 29 (1st Cir. 2009)
(stating that a criminal defendant is entitled to a weighing of
relevant factors, "not to a particular result"); United States v.
Vega–Salgado, 769 F.3d 100, 105 (1st Cir. 2014) (stating that the
district court's statement that it had reviewed the § 3553(a)
factors "is entitled to some weight" and that "parsing through
[the § 3553(a) factors] mechanically is not" required).
Moreover, the court did not err when it considered appellant's
criminal record. The court stated:
He has the convictions we mentioned, prior
convictions for resistance, obstruction of
public authority, second degree murder,
attempted murder, weapons laws, controlled
3 The district court stated: "Some people in this position
have mental problems, issues of that nature. He doesn't have that.
And in that sense, when you don't have a history of mental health
issues, you are in a sense kind of more in control of your
situation, more responsible in a sense, because you don't have the
detraction of the bad things that happen and the lack of control
that some people with mental issues and problems have."
- 9 -
substances. Issues with domestic violence.
Also the dismissals that appear here, many
dismissals. When we went one by one, for
controlled substances, aggravated riots,
weapons laws, first degree murder, all those
dismissed.
Obviously I have to consider this
background. Not only the prior convictions,
but also all these things. You have to
consider them, and quantify them
appropriately, carefully, because in some he
was convicted. In some he was not. But
remember that even uncharged conduct, even
dismissed conduct can be considered, as long
as you are careful in doing that.
Appellant was placed in CHC III based on convictions for
resisting authority, second degree murder, attempted murder, five
weapons law violations, and two domestic violence violations.4 The
court emphasized that defendant's CHC underrepresented the
seriousness of his prior offenses:
He had an issue with resisting authority,
police officers, obstruction, et cetera, but
he's found guilty, fined 50 bucks for
that . . . . Then he has a second degree
murder conviction . . . . Was originally a
first degree, and in plea negotiations, it was
reduced to second degree. And he was
sentenced to 12 years concurrent with whatever
4
He was fined $50 in 1995 for his conviction for resisting
authority; he was sentenced to concurrent terms of twelve years
imprisonment in 1996 for second degree murder, five years for
attempted murder, ten years for three weapons law violations, five
years for two weapons law violations; and, in 2008, he was fined
$100 for one domestic violence conviction. The second domestic
violence violation was dismissed.
- 10 -
else he had, which included an attempted
murder, for which he gets also five years
concurrent. And firearms violations for which
he gets ten years, but also concurrent.
So basically, there are two violations,
two Article Eight of the Puerto Rico firearms
laws. Actually, not two. Three, four, five --
five firearms violations. He gets ten in
each, and ten -- and some five. The Judge in
Arecibo packs them all together with the
murder reduced to second degree, and he is
given five in some, ten in some, the murder
12. Everything's absorbed by 12 for the
murder.
Sounds like a pretty good deal. If I
ever find myself in the situation of having to
respond to something like this, I will call
the lawyer he had to see whether I can get the
same deal . . . .
So he got all these things piled up into
the murder. Then we have a domestic violence
-- one, two. He's charged. Cases were
dismissed. One was dismissed. One he got a
100 dollar fine.
He resisted authorities by the way, also.
The same thing he did back in the first one
that we discussed. Slapped the face of Mrs.
J.D. Gonzalez, causing her to fall on the
floor, and then kicked her. This occurred in
the presence of a minor. Also, defendant
threatened Ms. Gonzales by saying . . . I am
going to kill you whore or bitch . . . . I'm
just saying when you see a 100 dollar fine for
all this, it just seems to me like kind of out
of bounds . . . . Then we go to the other
criminal conduct . . . [v]iolation of
controlled substances, distribution, and
distribution. Two cases in Arecibo, dismissed
under Rule 64, Speedy Trial Act, without
prejudice, never refiled . . . . Then he has
another firearms violation, two, which
included brandishing and aiming a
- 11 -
weapon . . . dismissed under the Speedy Trial
Act.
Then you have a first degree murder case
with a violation of the firearms laws, several
violations to the firearms laws. This one
also dismissed, Speedy Trial Act.
Sentencing courts are permitted to increase a sentence based
on the nature of a defendant's criminal history where the court
finds that the defendant's criminal history is underrepresented in
the defendant's criminal history score. Del Valle-Rodríguez, 761
F.3d at 176. Thus, "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." United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16, 21
(1st Cir. 2013).
Hence, the court properly considered the relevant sentencing
factors and adequately explained the rationale behind the
variance. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing a sentence outside the Guidelines.
- 12 -
2. Statements Made During Sentencing5
Appellant contends that a number of the district court's
statements during sentencing suggest that it erroneously inflated
appellant's sentence to "counteract or adjust what [the court]
thought was a laxity" in the Puerto Rico judicial system. For
example, the court said the following:
[W]here you see Presentence Report after
Presentence Report with histories of what
appear to be on paper horrific crimes,
horrific crimes that in a very consequent
manner, across the board, get this kind of
treatment. Something that, for example, we
know doesn’t happen in a court of justice such
as the District of Puerto Rico Federal Court.
It seems to me, it seems to me – I am not
accusing anybody of anything. It seems to me
that perhaps the pressure of the load of work,
the laxity, known laxity in plea negotiations,
all these things that are happening in state
court, give rise to this. One possibility. I
am not saying that that is the only
possibility. But you cannot deny that when
you look at a record like this, and you compare
it with what you have seen and I have seen in
a multitude of Presentence Reports coming out
of matters that happen in Puerto Rico state
court, sometimes they portray a picture that
5 The government has failed to respond to this argument in
its brief. Indeed, it only acknowledges that appellant makes the
argument: "Villanueva avers that the court . . . can't impose a
higher sentence to counter act [sic] or adjust what the judge
believe[s] is a laxity of the local judicial system." The
government risks losing a case it should not lose, given the record
below, with that kind of advocacy.
- 13 -
is difficult to swallow, to say the least. But
that's it. That's the record.
We understand appellant's concern. It would indeed be
inappropriate for a district court to impose a variant sentence on
a defendant because the district court regarded the manner in which
the local courts generally sentenced other persons to be too
lenient. It is also true that a sentencing court may abuse its
discretion by focusing "too much on the community and too little
on the individual." Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d at 24. However,
the fact that the court noted its perception that the local
criminal justice system is too lenient does not in and of itself
render its sentence procedurally unreasonable. The question is
whether the court properly focused on the defendant's particular
circumstances. Id. at 23-24 (holding that a district court did
not abuse its discretion by stating that "'local courts are
incapable of managing [gun-related cases]'" and "'[t]he word has
to spread that this Court is going to be extremely harsh with
defendants who conduct and carry out gun-related crimes'" because
it gave "individualized attention to the defendant's case"). As
evident from the language quoted in section B.1, supra, where the
court detailed the appellant's convictions in the Commonwealth
court and the sentences he received, the court was simply saying
- 14 -
that it viewed appellant's own criminal history as more serious
than the actual sentences received might imply given the crimes
committed. Although the court viewed the history of sentences
that appellant received in that system as emblematic of an overall
laxity in the system, the upward variance it imposed on appellant
was in response to appellant's particular sentencing history and
not the court's perception of the local system's laxity generally.
The court imposed the sentence it felt appellant's criminal conduct
merited. Accordingly, it did not abuse its discretion.
Affirmed.
- 15 -