United States v. Marchena-Silvestre, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Marchena-Silvestre, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1404

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

DAN CARLOS MARCHENA- SI LVESTRE,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. J os Ant oni o Fust , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Kayat t a, Sel ya, and Dyk, *

Ci r cui t J udges.

J uan Car l os Reyes- Ramos, Assi st ant Uni t ed Stat es At t or ney,wi t h whomRosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t orney, andNel son Pr ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef ,Appel l at e Di vi si on, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

Li nda J . Thompson, wi t h whom Rober t F. Hennessy and Thompson& Thompson, PC, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Oct ober 6, 2015

____________________

*Of t he Feder al Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/22

- 2 -

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. Dan Car l os Mar chena- Si l vest r e

( "Mar chena- Si l vest r e" ) appeal s hi s sevent y- t wo mont h sent ence

f ol l owi ng hi s gui l t y pl ea t o a char ge of unl awf ul l y possessi ng

aut omat i c weapons. Af t er car ef ul r evi ew of t he r ecor d, we

concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s sent enci ng det er mi nat i on was

i nf ected by pl ai n er r or .

I. Background

Si nce Mar chena- Si l vest r e' s sent ence f ol l owed a gui l t y

pl ea, we dr aw t he f acts f r om t he pl ea agr eement , t he change- of -

pl ea col l oquy, t he pr esent ence i nvest i gat i on r epor t ( PSR) , and t he

sent enci ng hear i ng t r anscr i pt . See Uni t ed St at es v. Al mont e-

Nuez, 771 F. 3d 84, 86 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . We r ehear se onl y t he

f act s necessar y t o f or m a basi s f or our anal ysi s.

A. The Offense and Indictment

On Oct ober 24, 2013, Puer t o Ri co l aw enf orcement agent s

sear ched Mar chena- Si l vest r e' s apar t ment pur suant t o a sear ch

war r ant . The agent s di scover ed and sei zed t he f ol l owi ng ar senal

of f i r ear ms and ammuni t i on: ( 1) an AR- 15 assaul t r i f l e, unl awf ul l y

modi f i ed t o f i r e i n f ul l aut omat i c mode, equi pped wi t h an unl awf ul

shor t bar r el , and l oaded wi t h one round i n t he chamber and t hi r t y-

seven r ounds i n t he magazi ne; ( 2) a Gl ock pi st ol , unl awf ul l y

modi f i ed t o f i r e i n f ul l aut omat i c mode, l oaded wi t h one r ound i n

t he chamber and twel ve rounds i n t he magazi ne; and ( 3) an

addi t i onal 127 r ounds of ammuni t i on f or t he t wo f i r ear ms.


3/22

- 3 -

Af t er wai vi ng hi s Mi r anda r i ght s, Mar chena- Si l vest r e

admi t t ed t hat t he f i r ear ms and ammuni t i on bel onged t o hi m, t hat he

pur chased bot h f i r ear ms, and t hat he al so pur chased and i nst al l ed

a met al chi p t hat enabl ed t he Gl ock pi st ol t o f i r e i n f ul l

aut omat i c mode. The i nvest i gat i ng agent s al so di scover ed t hat t he

Gl ock pi st ol had been st ol en f r om i t s regi st er ed owner . Less t han

a week af t er t he sei zur e, a f eder al gr and j ur y ret ur ned an

i ndi ct ment char gi ng Mar chena- Si l vest r e wi t h possessi ng a machi ne

gun i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( o) and possessi ng a st ol en

f i r ear m i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( j ) .

B. The Plea Agreement

Pur suant t o a wr i t t en pl ea agr eement ( t he Agr eement )

wi t h t he gover nment , Mar chena- Si l vest r e agr eed t o pl ead gui l t y t o

possessi ng t he machi ne gun. I n t ur n, t he government agr eed t o

di smi ss t he char ge t hat he possessed a st ol en f i r ear m, so l ong as

Mar chena- Si l vest r e compl i ed wi t h the Agr eement ' s t er ms.

Par agr aph 7 of t he Agr eement , ent i t l ed "Appl i cabi l i t y of

Uni t ed St at es Sent enci ng Gui del i nes, " cont ai ned a char t of

"Sent enci ng Gui del i nes Cal cul at i ons" f or 18 U. S. C. 922( o) t hat

Marchena- Si l vest r e and the government agr eed to "submi t " t o t he

cour t . The char t i ncl uded a base of f ense l evel of 18, see U. S. S. G.

2K2. 1( a) ( 5) , a t wo- poi nt upwar d enhancement f or a st ol en

f i r ear m, see U. S. S. G. 2K2. 1( b) ( 4) ( A) , and a t hr ee- poi nt

r educt i on f or accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y, see U. S. S. G. 3E1. 1,


4/22

- 4 -

t o ar r i ve at a t ot al adj ust ed of f ense l evel of 17. Si nce t he

par t i es di d not agr ee t o a cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y, t he char t

t hen set out t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne sent enci ng r anges f or

cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor i es I ( 2430 mont hs) t hr ough VI ( 5163

mont hs) . Par agr aph 9, ent i t l ed "Sent ence Recommendat i on, "

pr ovi ded t hat " t he gover nment r eserves t he r i ght t o request a t er m

of i mpr i sonment equal t o t he hi gher end of t he appl i cabl e

gui del i nes r ange and t he def endant wi l l r equest a t er m of

i mpr i sonment equal t o t he l ower end of t he appl i cabl e gui del i nes

r ange, " and t hat "any recommendat i on by ei t her par t y f or a t er mof

i mpr i sonment above or bel ow t he st i pul ated sentence r ecommendat i on

const i t ut es a mat er i al br each of t he . . . Agr eement . " The

st i pul at ed sent enci ng r ecommendat i ons di d not bi nd t he di st r i ct

cour t , and Mar chena- Si l vest r e onl y ret ai ned t he r i ght t o appeal i n

t he event t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not sent ence hi m wi t hi n t he

st i pul at ed gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange.

C. The Presentence Investigation Report

The di st r i ct cour t accept ed Mar chena- Si l vest r e' s gui l t y

pl ea at t he pl ea col l oquy, and i nst r uct ed t he pr obat i on depar t ment

t o submi t a PSR. The PSR depar t ed f r om t he Agr eement by

r ecommendi ng a base of f ense l evel of 20 rather t han 18, due t o t he

added consi der at i on t hat t he def endant ' s unl awf ul use of

cont r ol l ed subst ances made hi m a "prohi bi t ed per son" under t he

gui del i nes. See U. S. S. G. 2K2. 1( a) ( 4) ( B) . The PSR appl i ed t he


5/22

- 5 -

same t wo base l evel adj ust ment s as r ecommended by t he Agreement ,

r esul t i ng i n a t ot al of f ense l evel of 19 ( r at her t han 17 as

cal cul at ed i n t he Agr eement ) .

The PSR al so det ai l ed Mar chena- Si l vest r e' s cr i mi nal

hi st or y: I n 2009, he was convi ct ed of car r yi ng a f i r ear m i n

vi ol at i on of Puert o Ri co' s Weapons Law ( a mi sdemeanor f or whi ch he

was f i ned $300) ; and i n 2013 he was convi ct ed of i l l egal l y

occupyi ng pr oper t y owned by t he Puer t o Ri co Housi ng Depar t ment ,

r esul t i ng i n a $50 f i ne. The t wo convi ct i ons r esul t ed i n a

cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y of I . Cr oss- r ef er enci ng t hat cat egor y

wi t h t he tot al of f ense l evel of 19, t he PSR r ecommended a gui del i ne

sent enci ng r ange of 30 t o 37 mont hs. See U. S. S. G. ch. 5 pt . A

( Sent enci ng Tabl e) . I n hi s sentenci ng memorandum, Marchena-

Si l vest r e st at ed t hat he had "no obj ect i ons" t o t he PSR.

D. The Sentencing Hearing

The sent enci ng hear i ng began wi t h t he gover nment

i nf or mi ng t he cour t t hat i t woul d r equest a sent ence at t he "hi gh

end r ange of t he gui del i ne sent ence. " The cour t pr oceeded t o

summar i ze t he f act s of t he case based on t he PSR, not i ng t he

ser i ous and i l l egal ar senal at t he hear t of t he case. The cour t

t hen moved t o r evi ewi ng Mar chena- Si l vest r e' s cr i mi nal hi st or y,

not i ng t hat a combi nat i on of pr i or of f enses wi t hout ser i ous

penal t i es " i s what r eal l y st r i kes you when you see t hi s ki nd of

t hi ng. " The cour t not ed what i t t hought wer e t wo pr i or f i r ear ms


6/22

- 6 -

char ges: one a mi sdemeanor convi ct i on f or car r yi ng a f i r ear m

wi t hout a l i cense, t he ot her an ar r est f or car r yi ng what t he cour t

descri bed as a "ni ne mi l l i met er ni ckel pl at ed pi st ol . " I n f act ,

t he second charge as descr i bed i n t he PSR was f or car r yi ng a

"ni ckel magazi ne l oaded wi t h t hr ee r ounds of . 9 cal i ber

ammuni t i on, " a charge dr opped f or l ack of pr obabl e cause. No one

cor r ect ed t he cour t ' s mi sr eadi ng.

Gi ven a t ur n t o speak agai n bef or e t he cour t cal cul at ed

a gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange, t he pr osecut or cl ai med t hat he st ood

by t he t er ms of t he Agreement , yet he recommended a 37- mont h

sentence, equal i ng the hi gh end of t he PSR' s r ecommended r ange

( r at her t han t he 30- mont h hi gh end as speci f i ed i n t he Agr eement ' s

char t f or a cri mi nal hi st or y cat egor y of I ) .

Dur i ng t he ensui ng di scussi on, t he di st r i ct cour t

i nexpl i cabl y announced t hat Mar chena- Si l vest r e "has a base of f ense

l evel of 19, " whi ch was bot h wr ong and cont r ar y t o any i nf or mat i on

t hat was bef or e t he cour t . The cour t al so negl ect ed t o cal cul at e

any t ot al of f ense l evel . The cour t made cl ear t hat i t di d not

r egar d t he case as a gui del i nes "hear t l and" case, and t hat i t f el t

a l engt hi er sent ence was needed because of t he hi gh i nci dence of

cr i mi nal vi ol ence i n t he Commonweal t h f or whi ch there was t oo

l i t t l e account abi l i t y. I t r eci t ed t he "f actor s t o be consi der ed

i n i mposi ng a sent ence" l i st ed i n 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) , and made

cl ear t hat i t f el t t hat a "var i ance i s i n or der under [ t he] 3553( a)


7/22

- 7 -

f act or s. " The cour t t hen announced i t s sent ence by begi nni ng wi t h

a gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange, as f ol l ows:

Range i s 31 t o 41 mont hs. The f i ne r angei s 6, 000 t o 60 t housand, whi ch means nothi ngi n [ t hi s] case. Pl us super vi sed r el ease ofone t o t hr ee years. St atut ory maxi mum, t enyear s. I t hi nk t hat t hi s case, because of t heki nd of gun, ammuni t i on i nvol ved, hi s pr i orexper i ences bef or e t he l aw wi t h guns, r equi r esa sent ence of at l east 72 mont hs i s t hesent ence I ' m i mposi ng.

Unf or t unat el y, t he announced gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange

cor r esponded t o not hi ng i n t he PSR nor , f or t hat mat t er , t o any

of f ense l evel i n t he sent enci ng gui del i nes. See U. S. S. G. ch. 5

pt . A ( Sent enci ng Tabl e) . Had t he cour t adopt ed t he PSR' s

r ecommendat i on, t he r ange shoul d have been 30 t o 37 mont hs. Even

mor e unf or t unat el y, no one i n t he cour t r oom- - i ncl udi ng even

def ense counsel - - cor r ect ed t he cour t .

Pi l i ng er r or on t op of er r or s, when t he di st r i ct cour t

submi t t ed i t s wr i t t en st at ement of r easons, i t wr ot e that t he t ot al

of f ense l evel was 19, t hat t he cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y was I ,

and that t he gui del i ne sent enci ng range was 33 t o 41 mont hs ( not

31 t o 41 mont hs as i t had st ated ear l i er , or 30 t o 37 mont hs as

r ecommended by t he PSR) . A gui del i ne sentenci ng r ange of 33 t o

41 mont hs, however , appl i es t o ei t her a t ot al of f ense l evel of 20

wi t h a cri mi nal hi st or y cat egor y of I , or a t ot al of f ense l evel of

19 wi t h a cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y of I I . See U. S. S. G. ch. 5 pt .

A ( Sent enci ng Tabl e) . And, of cour se, t hat gui del i ne sent enci ng


8/22

- 8 -

r ange i ncl udes a hi gher f l oor t han t he ( al so i ncor r ect ) r ange

announced at t he hear i ng. 1

II. Analysis

On appeal , Mar chena- Si l vest r e says t hat he i s ent i t l ed

t o r esent enci ng f or t hr ee r easons: ( 1) hi s sent enci ng hear i ng was

pr ocedur al l y f l awed, ( 2) hi s above- gui del i ne 72- mont h i mpr i sonment

t er m i s subst ant i vel y unr easonabl e, and ( 3) t he gover nment

mater i al l y br eached t he pl ea agr eement . Because Marchena-

Si l vest r e di d not r ai se t hese obj ect i ons i n t he di st r i ct cour t , we

r evi ew onl y f or pl ai n er r or . See Uni t ed St at es v. Dvi l a-

Gonzl ez, 595 F. 3d 42, 47 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es

v. Rui z- Huer t as, 792 F. 3d 223, 228 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) . The pl ai n

er r or st andar d of r evi ew pl aces t he bur den on Marchena- Si l vest r e

t o make f our showi ngs i n or der t o j ust i f y r ever sal : " ( 1) t hat an

er r or occur r ed ( 2) whi ch was cl ear or obvi ous and whi ch not onl y

( 3) af f ected t he def endant ' s subst ant i al r i ght s, but al so ( 4)

ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c reput at i on

1 Our cour t has gener al l y gi ven cont r ol l i ng wei ght t o t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s or al expl anat i on of a sent ence when i t di f f er sf r om i t s wr i t t en expl anat i on. See Uni t ed St at es v. Fl emmi , 402F. 3d 79, 96 n. 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Muni z, 49 F. 3d36, 42 n. 5 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) . Her e, si nce bot h t he or al and wr i t t engui del i nes cal cul at i ons cont ai n cl ear and obvi ous er r or , we neednot choose whi ch cont r ol s. We si mpl y not e t hat t he wr i t t enexpl anat i on onl y compounds t he conf usi on ar i si ng f r om t hei ncor r ect cal cul at i on at t he sent enci ng hear i ng.


9/22

- 9 -

of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. " Uni t ed St at es v. Duar t e, 246 F. 3d 56,

60 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) .

A. Failure to Calculate the Guideline Sentencing Range

"' [ F] ai l i ng t o cal cul at e ( or i mpr oper l y cal cul at i ng) t he

Gui del i nes r ange' i s a ' si gni f i cant pr ocedur al er r or . ' " Uni t ed

St at es v. Tavar es, 705 F. 3d 4, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( al t er at i on i n

or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Gal l v. Uni t ed St at es, 552 U. S. 38, 51 ( 2007) ) .

The cour t ' s cal cul at i on f ai l ures i n t hi s case wer e obvi ous and

sever al . I t negl ected t o cal cul at e a t ot al of f ense l evel ,

mi sst at ed t he base of f ense l evel , and set t l ed on a non- exi st ent

gui del i ne sent enci ng range extendi ng f our mont hs l onger t han the

upper end of t he range recommended by t he PSR.

These er r or s and t hei r obvi ousness easi l y sat i sf y t he

f i r st t wo r equi r ement s f or a successf ul pl ai n er r or chal l enge.

The cl oser quest i on i s whet her Mar chena- Si l vest r e al so sat i sf i es

t he r equi r ement t hat he show t hat t he obvi ous er r or s "af f ect ed

[ hi s] subst ant i al r i ght s. " Duar t e, 246 F. 3d at 60. I n t he

sent enci ng cont ext , we const r ue thi s r equi r ement as i mposi ng a

"bur den of showi ng a r easonabl e l i kel i hood ' t hat , but f or t he

er r or , t he di st r i ct cour t woul d have i mposed a di f f er ent , mor e

f avor abl e sent ence. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Or t i z, 741 F. 3d 288, 293-

94 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Tur bi des- Leonar do,

468 F. 3d 34, 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ) . For t he f ol l owi ng r easons, we


10/22

- 10 -

t hi nk t hat Mar chena- Si l vest r e has shown such a r easonabl e

l i kel i hood.

We begi n wi t h t he r ol e of t he gui del i nes cal cul at i on

i t sel f . We need t r ead no new gr ound i n poi nt i ng out what precedent

al r eady makes cl ear about t he r equi r ed nat ur e of t hat cal cul at i on:

Al t hough t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes ar enow advi sory rat her t han mandat or y, di st r i ctcour t s ar e st i l l r equi r ed t o ' begi n al lsent enci ng pr oceedi ngs by cor r ect l ycal cul at i ng t he appl i cabl e Gui del i nes r ange. 'Gal l , 552 U. S. at 49. Onl y af t er a cour t hascor r ect l y cal cul at ed t he appl i cabl e

[ gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange] and eval uat ed t hef act or s set out i n 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) can i tpr oper l y exer ci se i t s di scret i on t o sent encea def endant wi t hi n or out si de t he appl i cabl eGui del i nes r ange. Far f r om a meani ngl essexer ci se, t he r equi r ement t hat t he di st r i ctcour t begi n by cor r ect l y cal cul at i ng t he[ gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange] serves ani mpor t ant f unct i on; i t pr ovi des ' a f r amewor kor st ar t i ng poi nt ' t o gui de t he exer ci se oft he cour t ' s di scr et i on. Freeman v. Uni t ed

St at es, 131 S. Ct . 2685, 2692 ( 2011) .St ar t i ng wi t h such a f r amewor k gi ves t hesent enci ng j udge ' an i dea of t he sent encesi mposed on equi val ent of f ender s el sewher e, 'whi ch i n t ur n ' pr omot e[ s] uni f or mi t y andf ai r ness' i n sent enci ng. Uni t ed St at es v.Rodr guez, 630 F. 3d 39, 41 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .Thus, even t hough sent enci ng j udges ar e f r eet o i mpose non- Gui del i nes sent ences i nappr opr i at e cases, ' di st r i ct cour t s must st i l lgi ve r espect f ul consi der at i on t o t he now-

advi sory Gui del i nes ( and thei r accompanyi ngpol i cy st at ement s) . ' Pepper v. Uni t edSt at es, 131 S. Ct . 1229, 1247 ( 2011) .

Uni t ed St at es v. Mi l l n- I saac, 749 F. 3d 57, 66- 67 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .


11/22

- 11 -

I t i s t her ef or e f ai r t o pr esume i n t he or di nar y case

t hat t her e i s a reasonabl e l i kel i hood t hat any var i ance added ont o

t hat st art i ng poi nt moves t he end poi nt beyond where i t woul d have

been but f or t he er r or i n t he st ar t i ng poi nt . See Or t i z, 741 F. 3d

at 294 ( " [ T] her e i s ever y reason t o bel i eve t hat t he cour t used

t he [ gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange] as an anchor i ng poi nt f r om whi ch

t o var y. " ) ; Rodr guez, 630 F. 3d at 41 ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he

sent enci ng j udge must " st ar t out by cal cul at i ng t he pr oper

Gui del i nes range- - a st ep so cri t i cal t hat a cal cul at i on er r or wi l l

usual l y r equi r e r esent enci ng" ) .

Thi s i s not t o say t hat every er r or i n cal cul at i ng t he

gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange cal l s f or r ever sal under pl ai n er r or

anal ysi s, or even under har ml ess er r or anal ysi s. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Mar sh, 561 F. 3d 81, 86 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( decl i ni ng t o

r esol ve a di sput e over whet her t he cour t er r oneousl y appl i ed an

upwar d depar t ur e under t he gui del i nes because "t he di st r i ct cour t

st at ed that i t woul d have r eached t he same resul t i n a non-

Gui del i ne set t i ng") ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ger har d, 615 F. 3d 7, 35 ( 1st

Ci r . 2010) ( si mi l ar ) ; cf . Wi l l i ams v. Uni t ed St at es, 503 U. S. 193,

202- 03 (1992) ( expl ai ni ng t hat r emand i s r equi r ed under har ml ess

er r or anal ysi s " onl y i f t he sent ence was i mposed as a resul t of an

i ncor r ect appl i cat i on of t he Gui del i nes" ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) . A sent enci ng cour t mi ght , f or exampl e, make i t cl ear

t hat i t was awar e of a possi bl e f l aw i n i t s cal cul at i on of a


12/22

- 12 -

gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange, and expl ai n t hat i t s sent ence woul d

never t hel ess be the same under an al t er nat i ve anal ysi s pressed by

t he par t y t hat ul t i mat el y appeal ed. See, e. g, Tavar es, 705 F. 3d

at 24- 28 ( deemi ng di st r i ct cour t ' s er r or i n not concl usi vel y

choosi ng between t he part i es' pr oposed sent enci ng r anges harml ess

because the cour t i ndi cat ed i t s under st andi ng of t he compet i ng

cal cul at i ons and t hen st at ed i t woul d el ect a sent ence above ei t her

r ange) . Her e, t hough, t her e i s no such expl anat i on by t he cour t .

I nst ead t he gover nment asks us t o i nf er such a vi ew, r el yi ng on

t he smal l number of mont hs by whi ch t he cour t err ed, t he rel at i vel y

much gr eat er si ze of t he var i ance, and t he round year nat ur e of

t he sent ence, al l on t op of a f ai r descr i pt i on of t he

sect i on 3553( a) f act or s and a cl ear i nt ent t o i ssue a var i ant

sent ence.

Whi l e t he case f or such an i nf er ence i s cer t ai nl y

pl ausi bl e, we t hi nk i t f al l s shor t of ser vi ng as an adequat e

subst i t ut e f or a "cl ear st at ement by t he cour t " t hat woul d be

suf f i ci ent t o "di mi ni sh t he pot ent i al of t he [gui del i ne sent enci ng

r ange] t o i nf l uence t he sent ence act ual l y i mposed. " Or t i z, 741

F. 3d at 294 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. McGhee, 651 F. 3d 153, 159

( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) . Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t at t empt ed t o cal cul at e

a gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange, descr i bed t hi s case by ref er ence t o

i t s di f f er ences f r om t he "hear t l and of cases" wi t hi n t hat r ange,

and, t hr oughout t he hear i ng, r eci t ed a l i t any of j ust i f i cat i ons


13/22

- 13 -

under sect i on 3553( a) f or var yi ng upwar d f r omt hat r ange gi ven t he

speci f i c char act er i st i cs of t he def endant and t he cr i me. Ther e

i s not hi ng wr ong wi t h t hi s appr oach- - unl ess one st ar t s at t he wr ong

yar d marker .

I t i s, of cour se, t r ue t hat t he di st r i ct cour t decl ar ed

bef or e hear i ng any ar gument t hat t hi s was "not a gui del i ne case. "

Sei zi ng on t hi s decl ar at i on, t he gover nment ar gues t hat t he

i ncor r ect cal cul at i on coul d not have mat er i al l y af f ect ed t he

sent ence. Thi s ar gument di r ect l y conf l i ct s wi t h t he gover nment ' s

own asser t i ons- - wi t h whi ch we agr ee- - t hat t he cour t "di d consi der

t he Gui del i nes, " and t hen exer ci sed i t s di scr et i on t o var y upwar d.

And we have al r eady expl ai ned t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r epeat ed

r ef er ences t o t he gui del i nes and t he "hear t l and of cases" wi t hi n

t hose gui del i nes i ndi cat e t o us t hat t he gui del i nes served as a

st ar t i ng poi nt f r om whi ch t he cour t i mposed an upwar d var i ance.

I t f ol l ows t hat i f t he di st r i ct cour t had cor r ectl y cal cul at ed a

l ower st ar t i ng poi nt , t hen t her e i s at l east a r easonabl e

l i kel i hood t hat i t woul d have l anded on a sent ence shor t er t han 72

mont hs ( even i f j ust a f ew mont hs shor t er ) . Not hi ng i n t hi s recor d

pr ovi des any i ndi cat i on cl ear enough to over bear t he pr obat i ve

f or ce of t hi s l ogi cal pr esumpt i on. See Or t i z, 741 F. 3d at 294

( f i ndi ng t hat si nce " t he r ecor d cont ai n[ ed] no suggest i on t hat t he

cour t consi der ed t he di mensi ons of t he [ gui del i ne sent enci ng

r ange] t o be i r r el evant , " an er r or i n cal cul at i ng def endant ' s


14/22

- 14 -

cr i mi nal hi st or y scor e caused pl ai n er r or ) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Fagans, 406 F. 3d 138, 141 ( 2d Ci r . 2005) ( expl ai ni ng t hat "an

i ncor r ect cal cul at i on of t he appl i cabl e Gui del i nes r ange wi l l

t ai nt not onl y a Gui del i nes sent ence, . . . but al so a non-

Gui del i nes sent ence, whi ch may have been expl i ci t l y sel ect ed wi t h

what was t hought t o be the appl i cabl e Gui del i nes r ange as a f r ame

of r ef er ence") .

Turni ng t o t he l ast prong of pl ai n er r or r evi ew, we need

not t ar r y. The di st r i ct cour t ' s r epeat ed f ai l ur es t o cal cul at e

t he gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange cor r ect l y, or t o expl ai n i t s

cal cul at i on, al l i n a f ashi on t hat cr eat ed a hi gher r ange t han was

r ecommended by ei t her t he PSR or t he Agreement , compromi sed the

f ai r ness and i nt egr i t y of t he pr oceedi ng. See Ol ano, 507 U. S. at

736. We t her ef or e concl ude t hat , under pl ai n er r or r evi ew, we

shoul d exer ci se our di scr et i on t o vacat e Mar chena- Si l vest r e' s

sent ence and af f or d hi m a new sent enci ng hear i ng. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Gonzl ez- Cast i l l o, 562 F. 3d 80, 84 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . 2

2 Si nce resent enci ng wi l l be requi r ed, we need not addr ess

Mar chena- Si l vest r e' s argument s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s choi ce ofsent ence r est ed on a cl ear l y er r oneous f act , t hat i t s expl anat i onwas i nadequat e, or t hat t he 72- mont h i mpr i sonment t er m i ssubst ant i vel y unr easonabl e. See Mi l l n- I saac, 749 F. 3d at 73 n. 9.We al so need not addr ess Marchena- Si l vest r e' s argument t hat anabuse of di scr et i on st andard of r evi ew woul d appl y had we reachedt he i ssue of subst ant i ve r easonabl eness. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v.Rui z- Huer t as, 792 F. 3d 223, 228 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) .


15/22

- 15 -

B. Alleged Breach of the Plea Agreement

Our deci si on t o r emand f or r esent enci ng due t o

pr ocedur al er r or does not end our anal ysi s, because t he par t i es

di sagr ee concer ni ng the meani ng of t he pl ea agr eement t hat wi l l

st i l l appl y on r esent enci ng, and we t ypi cal l y gr ant speci f i c

per f ormance as a r emedy wher e t he government ' s breach of a pl ea

agr eement l eads t o r ever si bl e er r or . See Uni t ed St at es v. Cl ar k,

55 F. 3d 9, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) . We t her ef or e addr ess t he cl ai med

br each, r evi ewi ng once agai n f or pl ai n er r or . I n so doi ng, we

const r ue the t erms and condi t i ons i n pl ea agr eement s i n accor dance

wi t h t r adi t i onal pr i nci pl es of cont r act l aw, see Uni t ed St at es v.

Mur phy- Cor der o, 715 F. 3d 398, 400 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( i nt er pr et i ng a

wai ver of appeal cl ause) , l ooki ng out si de t he document onl y as

necessary t o pr ovi de i l l umi nat i ng cont ext or r esol ve ambi gui t i es

i n t he wr i t i ng, see Uni t ed St at es v. Al egr i a, 192 F. 3d 179, 183

( 1st Ci r . 1999) .

The part i es appear t o agr ee- - as do we- - t hat t he

exi st ence of a br each tur ns on t he meani ng of t he phr ase

"appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange" i n Par agr aph 9 ( "Sent ence

Recommendat i on") of t he Agr eement . I n Marchena- Si l vest r e' s vi ew,

t he phr ase r ef er s t o t he r ange i dent i f i ed by the Agr eement i t sel f ,

i n t he char t i n Par agr aph 7 ( "Appl i cabi l i t y of Uni t ed St at es

Sent enci ng Gui del i nes" ) , t her eby r equi r i ng the gover nment t o

r ecommend a sent ence no great er t han 30 mont hs. The wor ds of t he


16/22

- 16 -

Agr eement st r ongl y suppor t t hi s vi ew. One nat ur al l y pr esumes t hat

t he undef i ned t er m "appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange" woul d r ef er

pr eci sel y t o t he gui del i ne set t l ement r anges set f or t h i n t he

i mmedi at el y pr i or sect i on of t he Agr eement cal l ed "Appl i cabi l i t y

of Uni t ed St at es Sent enci ng Gui del i nes. " I f t hi s wer e not t he

i nt ended cr oss- r ef erence, and one must l ook out si de the Agr eement

t o f i gur e out t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange, one woul d

be l ef t t o ask: Does i t r ef er t o t he r anges speci f i ed i n t he PSR,

or t o t hose f ound by the di st r i ct cour t ?

The gover nment i n i t s br i ef answer s t hi s quest i on by

i nsi st i ng t hat t he "appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange" means " t he

advi sory Gui del i nes' r ange f ound appl i cabl e at t he sent enci ng

hear i ng. " But t he gover nment i t sel f adopt ed as i t s r ecommendat i on

t he r ange set f or t h i n t he PSR bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t he

appl i cabl e r ange. Nor di d t he gover nment revi se i t s

r ecommendat i on when i t l ear ned of t he cour t ' s di f f er ent ( and

hi gher ) cal cul at i on. Gi ven t hi s sequence of event s, t he

gover nment ' s argument i s l i ke t he thi r t eent h chi me of a cl ock:

you not onl y know i t ' s wr ong, but i t causes you t o wonder about

ever ythi ng you hear d bef or e.

Ret ur ni ng t o t he Agr eement i t sel f , we observe t hat i f

t he government were cor r ect , t he chart i n Par agr aph 7, whi ch

occupi es near l y an ent i r e page of t he Agreement , woul d have no

appar ent pur pose. Conver sel y, under Mar chena- Si l vest r e' s


17/22

- 17 -

r eadi ng, i t ser ves t he obvi ous pur pose of set t i ng out t he

"appl i cabl e sent enci ng gui del i nes" t hat l i mi t ed t he r ange of

sent ences the part i es coul d r ecommend at t he hear i ng. Conf r ont ed

wi t h t hi s obser vat i on at or al ar gument , t he gover nment of f er ed

t hat t he char t ' s pur pose was " t r anspar ency" f or t he def endant .

But i f t hi s const r uct i on of t he char t as a gr at ui t ous, unnecessar y,

and non- bi ndi ng educat i onal i l l ust r at i on wer e cor r ect , we t hi nk

t he chart woul d onl y be capabl e of conf usi ng t he def endant and

set t i ng an expectat i on t hat coul d both go unmet by t he government ' s

r ecommendat i on l ater on and pr ovi de possi bl e cause f or a wi t hdr awal

of t he pl ea.

Mar chena- Si l vest r e' s r eadi ng al so f i nds st r ong suppor t

i n t he repeat ed r ef er ence t o a st i pul at i on bet ween t he par t i es i n

Par agr aphs 8 and 9. Af t er Par agr aph 7' s char t sets out a gui del i ne

sent enci ng r ange f or each of t he si x cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor i es,

al l based on a t ot al of f ense l evel of 17, Par agr aph 8 st at es t hat

" [ t ] he par t i es do not st i pul at e as t o any Cr i mi nal Hi st or y Cat egor y

f or Def endant . " I t woul d be ent i r el y unnecessar y t o make such a

decl ar at i on unl ess t he par t i es di d st i pul at e t o t he ot her var i abl e

i n t he char t ' s cal cul at i ons, i . e. , t he t ot al of f ense l evel of 17.

Par agr aph 9 t hen goes on t o st at e that " [ t ] he par t i es agr ee that

any r ecommendat i on . . . bel ow or above t he st i pul ated sent ence

r ecommendat i on const i t ut es a mater i al br each" of t he Agr eement .

( Emphasi s suppl i ed) . From t hi s l anguage one nat ur al l y concl udes


18/22

- 18 -

t hat , i f t he di st r i ct cour t sel ected a cri mi nal hi st or y cat egor y

of I , t he par t i es woul d be pr ohi bi t ed f r om ar gui ng f or a sent ence

out si de the range pr ovi ded i n t he cor r espondi ng sect i on of

Par agr aph 7' s char t .

We recent l y put t he gover nment on not i ce that i t s s i mi l ar

r eadi ng of an anal ogous pl ea agr eement was "anf r actuous. "

Al mont e- Nuez, 771 F. 3d at 89. I n Al mont e- Nuez, we were asked

whet her " t he def endant [ was] f or ecl osed f r om appeal i ng [ because]

he was ' sent enced i n accor dance wi t h t he t erms and condi t i ons set

f or t h i n the Sent ence Recommendat i on pr ovi si ons' of t he

Agr eement , " pur suant t o t he agr eement ' s wai ver of appeal cl ause.

I d. at 88. Par agr aph 7 ( "Sent enci ng Gui del i nes Cal cul at i ons" ) of

t hat agr eement i ncl uded a char t t hat cal cul at ed t he t ot al of f ense

l evel t o be 25. I d. at 88. Par agr aph 8 ( "Sent ence

Recommendat i on") t hen provi ded t hat " t he def endant may ar gue f or

t he l ower end of t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne range and t he government

may ar gue f or t he hi gher end of t he gui del i ne r ange appl i cabl e t o

def endant ' s Cr i mi nal Hi st or y Cat egor y[ . ] " 3 We i nt erpr eted t he

agr eement t o mean t hat " f or t he def endant t o have been sent enced

i n accor dance wi t h t he t erms of t he sent ence r ecommendat i on

pr ovi si ons, he woul d have had t o be sent enced wi t hi n a [ gui del i ne

3 Al t hough t he chart onl y set out a sent enci ng r angecor r espondi ng t o a cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y of I , t he Agr eemental so i ncl uded a "no st i pul at i on t o cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y"cl ause vi r t ual l y i dent i cal t o Mar chena- Si l vest r e' s Par agr aph 9.


19/22

- 19 -

sent enci ng r ange] der i ved f r om an of f ense l evel of 25. " Al mont e-

Nuez, 771 F. 3d at 88. Si nce t he di st r i ct cour t i mposed a sent ence

t hi r t een mont hs hi gher t han t he hi gh end of t he gui del i ne

sent enci ng r ange cor r espondi ng t o a t ot al of f ense l evel of 25 and

t he hi ghest possi bl e cri mi nal hi st or y cat egor y, "[ i ] t f ol l ow[ ed] ,

as ni ght f ol l ows day, t hat t he sent ences . . . wer e not i n

conf ormi t y wi t h t he Agreement ' s sentence r ecommendat i on

pr ovi s i ons. " I d. at 88.

The gover nment al so ar gued i n Al mont e- Nuez, as i t does

here, t hat " t he def endant was sent enced i n conf ormance wi t h t he

sent ence recommendat i on pr ovi si ons because t hose pr ovi si ons di d

not l ock i n a par t i cul ar [ gui del i ne sent enci ng r ange] . " I d. at

89. We r esponded by st at i ng t hat " t he Agr eement unambi guousl y set

t he of f ense l evel at 25 and bar r ed ar gument s i n f avor of f ur t her

adj ust ment s. " I d. at 89. We si mi l ar l y r ej ect ed t he not i on t hat ,

si nce t he di st r i ct cour t r et ai ned ul t i mat e sent enci ng di scret i on,

t he government coul d shi f t i t s r ecommendat i on based on what

occur r ed at t he hear i ng. I d. at 88- 89. And we not ed t hat , " [ w] i t h

mi ni mal ef f or t , t he gover nment coul d have dr af t ed a wai ver cl ause

havi ng t he ef f ect t hat i t unr eal i st i cal l y ascr i bes t o t he l anguage

act ual l y used i n t he Agr eement . " I d. at 89 n. 1 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. I som, 580 F. 3d 43, 51 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( consi der i ng an

appeal wai ver pr ovi si on t hat appl i ed i f t he sent ence i mposed by


20/22

- 20 -

t he Cour t i s wi t hi n t he gui del i ne range det er mi ned by t he Cour t or

l ower . ( emphasi s suppl i ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) ) ) .

So, t he Agr eement i t sel f t i l t s heavi l y i n f avor of t he

i nt er pr et at i on t hat Mar chena- Si l vest r e ur ges we adopt . The

pr obl em i s t hat hi s own counsel - - who pr esumabl y wel l under st ood

t he Agreement - - f ai l ed t o obj ect when the government r ecommended a

sent ence out si de t he st i pul at ed r anges. Was thi s an unwi t t i ng

f or f ei t ur e? Or was i t i nst ead ext r i nsi c evi dence t hat t he

Agr eement shoul d be read as t he government appl i ed i t i n f act

( al bei t not as t he gover nment cl ai ms on appeal ) ? Thi s woul d seem

t o be an i ssue on whi ch many of t he poi nt s f or each si de ar e own-

goal s.

We ar e t empt ed t o r el y on the st andard of r evi ew as t he

deci di ng f act or , gi ven the Supr eme Cour t ' s gui dance that " t he

second pr ong of pl ai n- er r or r evi ew . . . wi l l of t en have some

' bi t e' i n pl ea- agr eement cases. Not al l br eaches wi l l be cl ear

or obvi ous. Pl ea agr eement s are not al ways model s of

dr af t smanshi p, so t he scope of t he Government ' s commi t ment s wi l l

on occasi on be open t o doubt . " Pucket t v. Uni t ed St at es, 556 U. S.

129, 142 ( 2009) . But such a r el i ance of f er s l i t t l e pr agmat i c

sense i n t hi s case. We are r emandi ng f or a new sentenci ng anyhow,

at whi ch def ense counsel t hi s t i me wi l l pr esumabl y i nsi st on a

r ecommendat i on consi st ent wi t h t he chart i n Par agr aph 7 of t he

Agr eement . Of cour se, t he pr osecut i on has common sense, t oo. We


21/22

- 21 -

cannot i magi ne t hat i t wi l l cont i nue t o use t hi s same f or m t o

document new pl ea agr eement s i f i t want s t o ar gue f or a sent ence

i n a r ange not r ef l ect ed i n t he f or m. We not e, t oo, t hat i n

another case bef ore us t he pr osecut i on appear s not t o have pr essed

f or an i nt er pr et at i on of t he agr eement l i ke t hat f or whi ch i t

advocat es her e. See Uni t ed St at es v. Ci r i l o, No. 14- 1793, at 23

( 1st Ci r . Sept . 24, 2015) . The di f f er ence bet ween t he r anges f or

whi ch t he par t i es r espect i vel y ar gue i n t hi s case i s not gr eat , so

pr udent counsel may wel l er r on t he saf e si de r at her t han cr eat e

a pr obl emat i c, pr eser ved i ssue f or appeal . I n shor t , t her e i s a

good chance t hat t he i ssue wi l l never ar i se agai n i n t hi s case,

nor i n any f ut ur e case shoul d the government abandon i t s awkward

pl ea agr eement t empl at e. We t her ef or e exer ci se our di scr et i on not

t o f i nal l y adj udi cat e t he i ssue at t hi s st age of t hi s cont i nui ng

pr oceedi ng.

Fi nal l y, t o l eave r oom f or t he gover nment t o r eassess

i t s posi t i on on r emand, we di r ect t hat a di f f er ent j udge shal l

pr esi de over Mar chena- Si l vest r e' s sent enci ng pr oceedi ngs. The

possi bi l i t y t hat t he gover nment br eached t he pl ea agr eement , see

Uni t ed St at es v. Kur kcul er , 918 F. 2d 295, 300 ( 1st Ci r . 1990)

( st at i ng t hi s cour t ' s " r epeat edl y expr essed . . . pr ef er ence f or

. . . r esent enci ng bef or e a di f f erent j udge" when t he gover nment

br eaches a pl ea agr eement ) , and t he f act t hat t he j udge appear ed

t o have made up hi s mi nd that Marchena- Si l vest r e deserved a si x


22/22

- 22 -

year i mpr i sonment t er m wi t hout knowi ng t he cor r ect gui del i ne

sent enci ng r ange, see Mawson v. Uni t ed St ates, 463 F. 2d 29, 31

( 1st Ci r . 1972) ( per cur i am) ( expl ai ni ng t hat "[ i ] t i s di f f i cul t

f or a j udge, havi ng once made up hi s mi nd, t o r esent ence a

def endant ") , counsel i n f avor of f r esh eyes, "bot h f or t he j udge' s

sake, and t he appear ance of j ust i ce, " i d. See al so Uni t ed St at es

v. Hanono- Sur uj un, 914 F. 2d 15, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( or der i ng t hat

r esent enci ng occur bef or e a di f f er ent j udge due t o t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h a f eder al r ul e and i t s shar p upwar d

var i ance f r om t he sent enci ng gui del i nes) .

III. Conclusion

Mar chena- Si l vest r e' s sent ence i s vacat ed and t hi s mat t er

i s r emanded f or r esent enci ng bef or e a di f f er ent j udge.

Documents

United States v. Marchena-Silvestre, 1st Cir. (2015)