United States v. Davis-Torres

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 15-1756
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
ISAIAH DAVIS-TORRES,
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, Stahl, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
Eric Alexander Vos, Federal Public Defender, District of
Puerto Rico, Vivianne M. Marrero, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Supervisor, Appeals Section, and Eleonora C. Marranzini,
Research and Writing Specialist, on brief for appellant.
Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, Nelson
Pérez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate
Division, and Thomas F. Klumper, Assistant United States Attorney,
Senior Appellate Counsel, on brief for appellee.
September 21, 2016
STAHL, Circuit Judge. Appellant Isaiah Davis-Torres
pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The maximum
statutory penalty for the offense was a term of imprisonment of
ten years. In the plea agreement, the parties agreed to recommend
the lower end of the applicable guideline sentence range of 27 to
33 months imprisonment. The agreement also stipulated that the
sentencing decision was within the discretion of the District
Court, and included an appellate waiver.1
At the sentencing hearing, the District Court imposed a
term of imprisonment of 60 months. Davis now appeals, arguing 1)
that the government breached the plea agreement, and 2) that the
sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Finding
no ground for either claim, we AFFIRM.
I. Facts & Background2
Davis was arrested on December 18, 2014, in Guayama,
Puerto Rico, and charged with possession of a firearm. During the
course of the arrest, Puerto Rico Police Department ("PRPD") agents
confiscated a Romarm AK-47 type rifle, 109 rounds of ammunition,
1 The parties agree that the waiver does not bar the instant
appeal in light of Davis's sentence exceeding the parties' jointly
stipulated range.
2 As this appeal follows a guilty plea, we recount the facts
as established by the plea agreement, the presentence report, and
the sentencing transcript. United States v. King, 741 F.3d 305,
306 (1st Cir. 2014).
- 2 -
and two ammunition magazines. As Davis had previously been
convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year, the indictment charged Davis with one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Davis pled guilty and entered into a Plea and Forfeiture
Agreement with the government. With respect to sentencing, the
parties stipulated that the base offense level was 20 under
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, with a 3-level downward adjustment applied for
acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Although the
parties did not stipulate to Mr. Davis's Criminal History Category
("CHC"), the agreement noted that for a CHC of II, a guideline
sentence of between 27 and 33 months would be appropriate. The
parties agreed "to recommend the lower end" of this guideline
range, with "any recommendation for a sentence below or above the
stipulated sentencing range" constituting a material breach of the
agreement. Finally, the plea agreement stipulated "that the
sentence will be left entirely to the sound discretion of the
Court."
The United States Probation Office filed a Pre-Sentence
Investigation Report ("PSR") on April 10, 2015. The PSR reiterated
the stipulation of facts contained in the plea agreement, and also
included additional details of the investigation which led to
Davis's arrest. In particular, Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the PSR
- 3 -
included allegations that there were children in the area of the
public housing project in Guayama where individuals were selling
drugs, and that PRPD agents observed Davis in the vicinity of the
drug point displaying the AK-47.
At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel objected to
the inclusion of these additional factual allegations in the PSR.
As a result of this argument, the Court requested that the
government produce a witness to testify as to the objected-to
information contained in the PSR. In response, the government
called Agent Israel Martinez Cosme, who testified to the events in
question and was subjected to cross-examination by defense
counsel. Following the conclusion of Agent Martinez's testimony,
the court directed the agent to re-take the stand and then asked
whether there were children in the area at the time that the agent
observed Davis brandishing the AK-47. The agent responded that
there were. Following Agent Martinez's testimony, the court
overruled defense counsel's objections, finding that "paragraphs
11 and 12 are totally consistent in very general terms with the
situation that I have before me." The court ordered allocution,
and the government reiterated that it stood by the sentencing
recommendation contained in the plea agreement.
The district court concluded that the underlying factual
circumstances of the case, in particular the defendant's prior
criminal history and the firepower and ammunition in his possession
- 4 -
at the time of his arrest, justified an upward variance from the
recommended sentence in the plea agreement, and sentenced Davis to
60 months in prison. The court stated that, in its view, the
sentencing recommendation was too lenient.
Davis later filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
reiterating arguments made by defense counsel at the sentencing
hearing. Specifically, Davis argued that Agent Martinez's
testimony was not credible and that certain factual allegations
considered by the court during the sentencing hearing were not
true, in particular the agent's testimony that children were
present in the area when Davis openly displayed the AK-47. The
district court denied that motion, and this appeal followed.
II. Discussion
A. Breach of The Plea Agreement
Davis claims that the government's conduct both prior to
and during the sentencing hearing constituted a material breach of
the terms of the plea agreement. As an initial matter, the
government contends that Davis's argument should be deemed waived
due to his failure to raise it below. While we agree that Davis
did not raise this claim before the district court, we do not agree
that this failure necessarily constitutes a waiver. Rather,
without deciding whether the argument was waived, we give the
defendant the benefit of the doubt and apply plain error review.
See United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2000).
- 5 -
Under this standard, Davis must establish that "(1) there
was error; (2) the error was plain; (3) the error affected the
defendant's substantial rights; and (4) the error adversely
impacted the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings." United States v. Riggs, 287 F.3d 221, 224 (1st Cir.
2002). Davis presents four arguments that the government breached
the plea agreement, none of which we find persuasive.
First, Davis argues that the government provided the
probation office with facts which were not set forth in the plea
agreement. The government responds that it was under an ethical
obligation to do so. See United States v. Riggs, 347 F.3d 17, 19
(1st Cir. 2003) ("It was not only appropriate, but also in
conformity with the government's obligations for it to provide the
sentencing court with information as to the material facts
surrounding the offense.").
While the United States is free to stipulate to a less
detailed factual summary in a plea agreement, the government must
respond to requests for relevant documents filed by the Court — of
which the probation officer is viewed as an extension. Saxena,
229 F.3d at 5, n. 1. Furthermore, Davis was aware that this
information was provided to the probation office, and his attorney
was able to object to its inclusion in the PSR and was given an
adequate opportunity to cross-examine a witness at the sentencing
hearing on the disputed material.
- 6 -
Second, Davis contends that the government called a
witness to testify at the sentencing hearing "knowing that the
officer would be presenting evidence of offense conduct beyond
what Mr. Davis" agreed to in the plea agreement. Agent Martinez
was called by the government because the court instructed it to do
so, and this only occurred because defense counsel had requested
a hearing on the issues contained in the PSR. In fact, the
government did not have the witness available initially, and the
court recessed the hearing until the afternoon so that the
government could produce the agent. In short, there was no breach
of the plea agreement by the government in responding to the
court's request that it make the witness available.
Third, Davis contends that the government breached the
plea agreement by objecting to certain questions from defense
counsel during her cross-examination. In fact, the government
objected only twice — first when defense counsel asked the witness
a sarcastic question,3 and later when it believed that defense
counsel had made a factual mistake in one of her questions. Both
objections were sustained, and neither hindered the ability of
defense counsel to effectively cross-examine the agent.
3 Specifically, when challenging Agent Martinez on what he
had observed that day, defense counsel asked if the agent could
"see through buildings."
- 7 -
Mr. Davis's fourth argument, that the government merely
paid lip service to the plea agreement, is similarly without merit.
During allocution, the government reiterated that it stood by the
terms of the plea agreement, even after the Court criticized the
plea agreement as being too lenient. While the government "must
keep its plea agreements," United States v. Mata-Grullon, 887 F.2d
23, 24 (1st Cir. 1989), "its recommendations need not be
'enthusiastic.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Ramos, 810 F.2d
308, 313-14 (1st Cir. 1987)).
Thus, there was no breach by the government.
B. The Reasonableness of the Sentence
Because Davis objected to his sentence before the
District Court, we review its reasonableness for abuse of
discretion. United States v. King, 741 F.3d 305, 307 (1st Cir.
2014) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)).
Under this standard, we first evaluate whether the District Court
committed any procedural error, including, inter alia, "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. Secondly, "[w]here the
district court has committed no such [procedural] error, we next
- 8 -
turn to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence actually
imposed and review the sentence for abuse of discretion." United
States v. Politano, 522 F.3d 69, 72 (1st Cir. 2008). The
substantive reasonableness inquiry "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).
We find that the district court committed no procedural
error. The court accurately calculated the guideline sentencing
range, which was also spelled out by the parties in the plea
agreement. Although Davis argues that the Court acted as an
advocate for the government at the sentencing hearing by calling
a witness to testify as to the contents of the PSR, this argument
misstates the record. Defense counsel asked the court to make a
ruling on a factual dispute which Davis raised for the first time
at the sentencing hearing, and the court did not abuse its
discretion by asking the government to call a witness to testify
on that issue. Having ruled on the inclusion of the facts in the
PSR, the court did not abuse its discretion by considering those
factors in its sentencing decision.
Finally, the court adequately explained why it believed
that an upward variance was justified in Davis's case, as it was
required to do. See, e.g., Del Valle-Rodríguez, 761 F.3d at 176
("Where, as here, a court imposes a sentence above the GSR, it
must justify the upward variance."). The district court cited
- 9 -
Davis's prior criminal history, which included a previous firearms
violation for which he was already serving a 13-year term of
probation. The court also emphasized the inherent danger in
carrying an AK-47 semi-automatic rifle with two high capacity
magazines and 109 rounds of ammunition, particularly in an area
where children were present and where drugs were being sold. The
court noted that Davis's conduct "could have resulted in a
massacre," a point not disputed by defense counsel. There was no
abuse by the District Court in imposing an upward variance.
Finally, we address Davis's argument that the sentence
was substantively unreasonable. A sentence is substantively
reasonable "so long as it rests on a 'plausible sentencing
rationale' and embodies a 'defensible result.'" United States v.
Ruiz-Huertas, 792 F.3d 223, 228 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting United
States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 96 (1st Cir. 2008)). In this case,
we reject Davis's argument that the sentence was substantively
unreasonable. The 60-month sentence is well below the statutory
maximum of 120 months for violation of the felon-in-possession
statute. And we do not find any evidence that the District Court
abused its discretion in determining that the nature,
circumstances, and severity of the defendant's conduct warranted
a 60-month sentence in this case.
AFFIRMED.
- 10 -