United States v. Romero-Galindez, 1st Cir. (2015)

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

1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2205

UNI TED STATES,

Appel l ee,

v.

ANGEL ENRI QUE ROMERO- GALI NDEZ,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

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

[ Hon. Dani el R. Dom nguez, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Howard and Thompson, Ci r cui t J udges.

Kendys Pi ment el Sot o on br i ef f or appel l ant .Rosa Emi l i a Rodr quez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, and

Nel 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, on br i ef f or appel l ee.

Apr i l 3, 2015


2/22

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Fol l owi ng a gui l t y pl ea on a

weapons char ge, Angel Romero- Gal i ndez, who many year s ear l i er had

f our t i mes over been convi ct ed of mur der , was sent enced as an armed

car eer cr i mi nal t o t went y year s i mpr i sonment . Cl ai mi ng an

assor t ment of er r or s per meat ed t he pr oceedi ngs bel ow, Romero-

Gal i ndez appeal s, aski ng t hi s cour t t o vacat e hi s gui l t y pl ea and

sent ence. Havi ng car ef ul l y consi der ed t he mat t er , we af f i r m.

BACKGROUND

Si nce 1997, Romero- Gal i ndez, who was convi ct ed of

commi t t i ng f our mur ders between the ages of si xt een and sevent een,

had been servi ng t i me i n t he Puer t o Ri co st at e cor r ect i onal

syst em. 1 I n 2012, t he t hen t hi r t y- one year ol d, had been gr ant ed

par ol e and was st ayi ng at some type of r ehabi l i t at i on cent er .

Accor di ng t o Romer o- Gal i ndez, he r ecei ved a cal l at t he cent er f r om

hi s si st er , who expr essed concer n f or her l i f e f ol l owi ng a gang

shoot - out at t he housi ng pr oj ect where Romero- Gal i ndez had gr own

up. Wor r i ed, Romer o- Gal i ndez l ef t t he cent er t o speak wi t h t he

i nvol ved gang members and, once t he i ssue was r esol ved, r eport edl y

cont act ed hi s pr obat i on of f i cer t o t ur n hi msel f i n.

On Mar ch 27, 2012, Puer t o Ri co pol i ce of f i cer s, havi ng

l ear ned t hat Romer o- Gal i ndez, a st at e f ugi t i ve because of hi s

1 Si nce t hi s appeal f ol l ows a gui l t y pl ea, we gat her t hef act s f r om "t he change- of - pl ea col l oquy, t he pr esent encei nvest i gat i on r epor t , and t he t r anscri pt of t he di sposi t i onhear i ng. " Uni t ed St at es v. J i mi nez, 498 F. 3d 82, 84 ( 1st Ci r .2007) .

-2-


3/22

depar t ur e f r om t he r ehabi l i t at i on f aci l i t y, was resi di ng at t he

publ i c housi ng pr oj ect , went t her e and ar r est ed hi m. Romer o-

Gal i ndez consent ed t o a sear ch of t he apar t ment , whi ch r esul t ed i n

t he sei zur e of an AK- 47 assaul t r i f l e and ammuni t i on. He admi t t ed

t he r i f l e was hi s .

Federal aut hor i t i es st epped i n and Romero- Gal i ndez was

char ged wi t h bei ng a f el on i n possessi on of a f i r ear m, i n vi ol at i on

of 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 1) , and t he Ar med Car eer Cr i mi nal Act , 18

U. S. C. 924( e) ( 1) . Fol l owi ng pl ea negot i at i ons, Romer o- Gal i ndez,

who was r epr esent ed by counsel t hr oughout al l cour t pr oceedi ngs,

wai ved hi s r i ght t o a t r i al by j ur y and sought t o pl ead gui l t y.

The pl ea agr eement i ndi cat ed t hat t he mi ni mumt er mof i mpr i sonment

r equi r ed by st at ut e was "no l ess t han f i f t een year s ( 15) and no

mor e t han l i f e i n pr i son. " I t al so r ef l ected t he par t i es'

agr eement t hat shoul d Romero- Gal i ndez not be f ound an armed car eer

cr i mi nal , t he government woul d recommend he be sentenced at t he

hi gher end of t hat r ange, whi l e the def ense woul d advocate f or t he

l ower end. The par t i es st i pul at ed, however , t hat shoul d Romer o-

Gal i ndez t ur n out t o be an ar med car eer cr i mi nal , t he par t i es woul d

r ecommend a f i f t een- year sentence.

The change of pl ea hear i ng t ook pl ace on J anuar y 18, 2013

bef or e a magi st r at e j udge. Upon quest i oni ng, Romer o- Gal i ndez

i nf ormed t he j udge t hat t he pl ea agr eement had been expl ai ned t o

hi mand t hat he underst ood what i t sai d. The gover nment r ei t er at ed

-3-


4/22

t hat , i n t he event Romero- Gal i ndez was f ound to be an ar med car eer

cr i mi nal ( whi ch def ense counsel conceded was a near guarant ee) , t he

par t i es wer e suggest i ng the f i f t een- year mandat or y mi ni mum

sent ence. The j udge went on t o expl ai n t he penal t y f aced by

Romer o- Gal i ndez. She i ndi cat ed t hat t he 922( g) ( 1) char ge car r i ed

a maxi mum penal t y of t en years i mpr i sonment and thr ee years

super vi sed r el ease but , i f Romer o- Gal i ndez was f ound t o have

vi ol at ed t he Ar med Car eer Cr i mi nal Act , " t hen you' r e consi der ed a

car eer cr i mi nal , and t hen t he st at ut or y maxi mum does not appl y. "

Af t er some more back and f ort h, Romero- Gal i ndez pl ed gui l t y and t he

j udge f ound hi m qual i f i ed t o do so.

The magi st r at e j udge i ssued a r epor t and r ecommendat i on.

I n i t , she i ndi cat ed t hat Romer o- Gal i ndez expr essed hi s

underst andi ng of t he maxi mumpenal t i es, whi ch t he r eport st ated was

not l ess t han f i f t een year s i mpr i sonment or mor e t han l i f e, wi t h a

t er mof super vi sed r el ease of not mor e t han f i ve year s. The r epor t

r ecommended t he gui l t y pl ea be accept ed, whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t

j udge t hen di d.

The present ence i nvest i gat i on r epor t ( PSR) i ssued.

Romer o- Gal i ndez' s base of f ense l evel was put at 26 but t he

enhancement f or hi s ar med car eer cr i mi nal st atus brought hi mup t o

33. Wi t h t hr ee poi nt s t aken of f f or accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y,

t he t ot al of f ense l evel ended up at 30. The PSR not ed t he

st atut ory mi ni mum penal t y was f i f t een years and t he maxi mum was

-4-


5/22

l i f e. The gui del i ne r ange, gi ven t he t ot al of f ense l evel of 30 and

cr i mi nal hi st ory cat egory of VI , was 180 t o 210 mont hs i mpr i sonment

( f i f t een t o sevent een and a hal f year s) . The r epor t al so not ed

t hat t he st at ut or y t er m of r el ease was not mor e than f i ve year s,

and t he gui del i ne range f or super vi sed r el ease was t wo to f i ve

year s.

Romero- Gal i ndez' s sent enci ng hear i ng t ook pl ace over

t hr ee days, t he i mport ant date f or our pur poses bei ng August 19,

2013, when hi s sentence was handed down. 2 Though t he gover nment

st ood by i t s f i f t een- year sent ence r ecommendat i on, t he di st r i ct

j udge was unconvi nced. Emphasi zi ng Romer o- Gal i ndez' s f our pr i or

mur der convi ct i ons and t he f act t hat an AK- 47 i s an of f ensi ve

weapon, t he j udge i ndi cated t he st atut ory mi ni mum woul d not be a

suf f i ci ent det er r ent . Though t he j udge went t hr ough t he Gui del i nes

cal cul at i on del i neat ed i n t he PSR, he was cl ear t hat " t he cour t i s

goi ng t o pr ovi de a st at ut or y sent ence, not a gui del i ne sent ence. "

He t hen sent enced Romero- Gal i ndez t o 240 mont hs ( t went y years) i n

pr i son, wi t h f i ve year s of super vi sed r el ease t o f ol l ow.

Romer o- Gal i ndez t i mel y appeal ed, chal l engi ng bot h t he

val i di t y of hi s pl ea and t he reasonabl eness of hi s sent ence.

2 On t he f i r st hear i ng day, J ul y 19, 2013, t he cour t hear df r om t wo def ense wi t nesses advocat i ng f or l eni ency, and on t hesecond day, J ul y 23, 2013, argument s were hear d on whet her Romero-Gal i ndez was ar r est ed or vol unt ar i l y sur r ender ed.

-5-


6/22

VALIDITY OF PLEA

Romero- Gal i ndez says hi s pl ea was not knowi ng and

vol unt ar y because t he j udge f ai l ed t o i nf or m hi m of t he st at ut or y

mi ni mum ( f i f t een year s) and maxi mum ( l i f e) at t he change of pl ea

hear i ng, and got t he maxi mum t er m of super vi sed r el ease wr ong,

cal l i ng i t t hr ee year s i nst ead of f i ve. The gover nment , f or

unknown r easons, onl y addr esses t he second hal f of t hi s argument .

Whi l e i t does not di sput e t hat t he t er m of super vi sed r el ease was

st at ed i ncor r ect l y, i t cl ai ms i t does not mat t er because i t i s

cl ear f r omt he r ecor d t hat Romer o- Gal i ndez was awar e of t he cor r ect

t er mand t he di f f er ence bet ween t he st at ed and act ual t er mof year s

i s not so gr eat .

Si nce Romer o- Gal i ndez di d not obj ect or seek to set asi de

hi s pl ea bel ow, r evi ew i s f or pl ai n er r or onl y. Uni t ed St at es v.

Sant i ago, 775 F. 3d 104, 106 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . The r ubr i c i s

f ami l i ar ; t her e must be ( 1) an er r or , ( 2) t hat was pl ai n, ( 3) whi ch

af f ect ed subst ant i al r i ght s, and ( 4) ser i ousl y i mpact ed "t he

f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y or publ i c reput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. "

I d.

The er r or here i s pl ai n. Rul e 11 of t he Feder al Rul es of

Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e pr ovi des t hat at t he change of pl ea hear i ng " t he

cour t must i nf or m t he def endant of , and det er mi ne that t he

def endant under st ands . . . any maxi mumpossi bl e penal t y, i ncl udi ng

i mpr i sonment , f i ne, and t er mof super vi sed r el ease. " Fed. R. Cr i m.

-6-


7/22

P. 11( b) ( 1) ( H) . The cour t must do t he same f or " any mandatory

mi ni mum penal t y. " Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 11( b) ( 1) ( I ) . None of t hi s was

done her e. Whi l e t he magi st r at e j udge expl ai ned t hat t he

922( g) ( 1) maxi mumpenal t y of t en years i mpr i sonment woul d not appl y

i f Romero- Gal i ndez was f ound t o be an armed career cr i mi nal ( as he

had been char ged) , she never went on t o say what t he mandat ory

mi ni mum and maxi mum penal t y woul d be i n t hat event . And, as t he

government concedes, t he j udge al so mi sst ated t he maxi mum t erm of

super vi sed r el ease as bei ng t hr ee year s r at her t han f i ve.

Nonethel ess, even t hough t he j udge cl ear l y er r ed, Romero-

Gal i ndez' s cl ai mf al t er s under t he pl ai n er r or r equi r ement t hat hi s

subst ant i al r i ght s be af f ect ed, whi ch r equi r es t hat Romer o- Gal i ndez

"show a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , but f or t he er r or , he woul d

not have ent ered t he pl ea. " Uni t ed St ates v. Domi nguez Beni t ez,

542 U. S. 74, 83 ( 2004) ; see al so Sant i ago, 775 F. 3d at 107. Thi s

he cannot do.

I n suppor t of hi s cl ai mof er r or , Romer o- Gal i ndez r el i es

on Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Mal donado, 560 F. 3d 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2009)

and Uni t ed St at es v. Sant o, 225 F. 3d 92 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) .

I n Ri ver a- Mal donado, t he def endant was er r oneousl y

i nf ormed i n both the pl ea agr eement and the change of pl ea col l oquy

t hat he f aced, at most , t hr ee year s of super vi sed r el ease, when i n

f act t he maxi mumwas l i f e. 560 F. 3d at 17- 18. The cor r ect t er mof

super vi sed r el ease was cont ai ned i n t he l at er - i ssued PSR, and

-7-


8/22

r el i ed upon at sentenci ng by t he j udge who sent enced t he def endant

t o super vi sed r el ease f or l i f e. I d. at 19. As i n t hi s case, al l

wer e i n agr eement t hat t he er r or was pl ai n. I d. Emphasi zi ng t he

"dr amat i cal l y al t er ed . . . sent enci ng st akes f or t he def endant , "

t hi s cour t went on t o f i nd a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat t he

def endant woul d not have ent ered t he pl ea had he underst ood hi s

exposur e. I d. at 21.

Si mi l ar l y, i n Sant o, we f ound t hat t he def endant havi ng

been i nf ormed i n the pl ea agr eement , and at t he change of pl ea

hear i ng, t hat t he mandatory mi ni mum was f i ve year s i mpr i sonment

i nst ead of t he cor r ect t en year s ( whi ch he was ul t i mat el y sent enced

t o) was an er r or t hat r easonabl y coul d have af f ect ed hi s deci si on

t o change hi s pl ea t o gui l t y. 3 225 F. 3d at 101. As i n Ri ver a-

Mal donado, t he cor r ect i nf or mat i on was provi ded t o t he def endant i n

t he PSR and at sent enci ng. Sant o, 225 F. 3d at 96.

Ther e ar e some i mpor t ant di f f er ences bet ween t he above

cases and t he one at hand. We st ar t wi t h Romero- Gal i ndez' s mi ni mum

and maxi mum t erm of i mpr i sonment .

3 Sant o was deci ded bef ore the Supr eme Cour t hel d i n Uni t edSt at es v. Vonn, 535 U. S. 55, 58 ( 2002) and Uni t ed St at es v.Domi nguez Beni t ez, 542 U. S. 74, 76 ( 2004) t hat pl ai n err or was t he

apr opos st andar d i n unpr eserved Rul e 11 cl ai ms. Uni t ed St at es v.Or t i z- Gar c a, 665 F. 3d 279, 288 n. 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . I n ef f ectt hough, t he r evi ew empl oyed i n Sant o was si mi l ar . I n i t , we notedt he hi gh hur dl e f aced by t he def endant , quest i oned whet her t her ewas a subst ant i al def ect i n t he pr oceedi ngs, and consi der ed t hei mpact on t he def endant ' s subst ant i al r i ght s. Sant o, 225 F. 3d at97.

-8-


9/22

Si gni f i cant l y, unl i ke i n Ri ver a- Mal donado and Sant o, t he

mandatory mi ni mum and maxi mum t erm of i mpr i sonment was st ated

cor r ect l y i n t he pl ea agr eement , a document t hat Romero- Gal i ndez

acknowl edged at t he pl ea hear i ng t hat he underst ood. At t he pl ea

hear i ng, t he magi st r at e j udge never cont r adi ct ed t he i nf or mat i on

cont ai ned i n the pl ea agr eement , r at her she negl ect ed to ment i on

i t . Fur t her , at t he hear i ng, t he gover nment at t or ney twi ce

accur at el y st at ed t hat t he st at ut or y mi ni mum was f i f t een year s

( t hough di d not r ef er ence t he mandat or y maxi mum of l i f e) whi l e

expl ai ni ng t he par t i es' agr eement t o recommend the mi ni mum

sent ence. That makes t hi s case more aki n t o Uni t ed St ates v.

Sevi l l a- Oyol a, 770 F. 3d 1, 4- 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) , i n whi ch t he j udge

f ai l ed t o advi se t he def endant of a cer t ai n maxi mumpenal t y at t he

pl ea hear i ng. Though we ul t i matel y f ound t he i ssue wai ved on

appeal , we concl uded t he def endant coul d not est abl i sh pl ai n er r or

- - speci f i cal l y, a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat he woul d not have

pl ead gui l t y - - because the omi t t ed maxi mum penal t y was cor r ect l y

cont ai ned i n t he PSR, whi ch the def endant conf i r med he underst ood

dur i ng t he pl ea col l oquy. I d. at 14 n. 24.

As f ar as post - pl ea, t he mi ni mum and maxi mum t erms of

i mpr i sonment wer e cor r ect l y st at ed i n t he magi st r at e j udge' s r epor t

and r ecommendat i on r egardi ng pl ea acceptance. The same goes f or

t he PSR. Thr ee ver si ons of t he PSR i ssued bef or e sent enci ng, each

of whi ch accur at el y st at ed the st at ut or y mi ni mum and maxi mum t er m

-9-


10/22

of i mpr i sonment . At t he sent enci ng hear i ng, when t he j udge

expl ai ned what penal t i es Romer o- Gal i ndez f aced, t he i nf or mat i on

pr ovi ded was accurate as wel l .

No mor e i s needed. Al l i ndi cat i ons ar e t hat Romer o-

Gal i ndez was made awar e of t he mandat or y mi ni mum and maxi mum

i mpr i sonment t er m dur i ng pl ea negot i at i ons, as evi denced by the

pl ea agr eement . That r ange was t hen cor r ect l y r ei t er at ed i n t he

r eport and r ecommendat i on, i n t hr ee PSRs, and at sent enci ng.

Romer o- Gal i ndez never expr essed surpr i se or hesi t at i on at any of

t hese j unct ur es. 4 Gi ven al l t hi s, Romer o- Gal i ndez cannot

demonst r ate a r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat he woul d not have ent ered

t he pl ea but f or t he st at ut or y sent ence r ange bei ng omi t t ed f r om

t he pl ea hear i ng. See Domi nguez Beni t ez, 542 U. S. at 83.

Mi si nf or mi ng t he def endant of t he appl i cabl e t er m of

super vi sed r el ease al so gi ves no gr ound f or set t i ng asi de t he pl ea

i n t hi s case. The r el evant t er m of super vi sed r el ease was not

r ef erenced i n t he pl ea agr eement and, as t he government concedes,

was i ncor r ect l y st at ed at t he change of pl ea hear i ng as bei ng

t hr ee, as opposed t o f i ve, year s. However , l i ke t he st at ut or y

4 Not abl y, i t i s not as i f Romer o- Gal i ndez' s at t or ney was not

cont empl at i ng pr obat i on' s PSR cal cul at i ons. Rat her , i n bet ween t heor i gi nal PSR and ver si on t wo i ssui ng, Romer o- Gal i ndez' s at t or neyf i l ed a "Mot i on f or Exam" seeki ng t o i nspect t he sei zed AK- 47. Henoted t hat pr obat i on had cl assi f i ed t he weapon as a machi ne gun, adesi gnat i on he di sput ed. An exami nat i on of t he weapon was soughtbecause the " r esul t of sai d exami nat i on coul d af f ect t he gui del i necal cul at i ons al r eady submi t t ed i n t he pr esent case. "

-10-


11/22

mi ni mum and maxi mum i mpr i sonment t er m, t he appl i cabl e t er m of

r el ease was accur at el y st at ed i n t he magi st r at e j udge' s r epor t and

r ecommendat i on, i n the t hr ee ver si ons of t he PSR, and at t he

sent enci ng hear i ng by the j udge whi l e he expl ai ned t he penal t i es on

t he t abl e. Agai n, Romer o- Gal i ndez di d not bal k at any of t hose

poi nt s i n t i me.

Uni t ed St at es v. Or t i z- Gar c a 665 F. 3d 279 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) i s i nst r uct i ve. I n t hat case, bot h t he pl ea agr eement and

t he j udge at t he change of pl ea hear i ng f ai l ed t o expl ai n t he

maxi mum penal t y f aced by the def endant ; however , t he i nf ormat i on

was accuratel y st ated i n t he PSR and by the j udge at sent enci ng,

and t he def endant l odged no obj ect i on. I d. at 285, 287. Based on

t he def endant ' s f ai l ur e t o obj ect , t he gover nment ur ged t hi s cour t

t o f i nd no Rul e 11 vi ol at i on, but we wer e unmoved. I d. at 286.

The r ecor d r eveal ed t hat t he j udge had not conf i r med at sent enci ng

t hat t he def endant had r ead and di scussed t he PSR wi t h hi s at t orney

( as r equi r ed by Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 32( i ) ( 1) ( A) ) .

I d. at 287. We expl ai ned t hat had t he r ecor d shown t hat t he

def endant had revi ewed the PSR pr i or t o sent enci ng, " t hat mi ght

i ndeed negat e Or t i z' s cl ai m t hat t he Rul e 11 er r or af f ect ed hi s

subst ant i al r i ght s, gi ven Or t i z' s f ai l ur e t o obj ect t o t he PSR. "

I d. ; see al so Sant i ago, 775 F. 3d at 108 ( f i ndi ng t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s conf i r mi ng t hat t he def endant had r evi ewed t he PSR wi t h hi s

at t or ney di spr oved hi s cont ent i on t hat he was caught by sur pr i se) .

-11-


12/22

Here, Romero- Gal i ndez makes no al l egat i on t hat he di d not

r ead and di scuss t he t hr i ce- i ssued PSR pr i or t o sent enci ng, nor

does anythi ng i n t he recor d compel t hat concl usi on. 5 On t op of

t hi s, t he er r oneous i nf or mat i on r egar di ng t he per t i nent t er m of

super vi sed r el ease di d not "dr amat i cal l y al t er [ ] t he sent enci ng

st akes f or t he def endant , " a f act or we wer e concer ned wi t h i n

Ri ver a- Mal donado. 560 F. 3d at 21; see i d. ( emphasi zi ng " t he

dr amat i c di f f er ence bet ween a t hr ee year per i od of super vi sed

r el ease and a l i f et i me of super vi sed r el ease") . Though we by no

means mi ni mi ze t he rest r ai ni ng nat ur e of super vi sed r el ease, t he

t wo year di f f er ence bet ween t hr ee and f i ve year s of super vi sed

r el ease i s but a smal l f r act i on of t he l i f e- i mpr i sonment penal t y

t hat Romer o- Gal i ndez was f aci ng. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.

Munoz, 68 F. 3d 465, 1995 WL 581435, *1 ( 5t h Ci r . 1995) ( per cur i am)

( unpubl i shed) ( "The cour t ' s under st at ement of t he super vi sed

r el ease t er m by t wo year s was a r el at i vel y smal l f r act i on of t he

maxi mumt er mof i mpr i sonment ( l i f e) t hat [ t he def endant s] f aced. " ) .

And t he t r anscr i pt of t he sent enci ng hear i ng makes cl ear t hat t he

pr i mar y concer n f or Romer o- Gal i ndez ( and the cour t ) was t he l engt h

of t i me t hat he woul d be i mpr i soned, speci f i cal l y how ol d he woul d

5 The r ecor d i ncl udes t he t r anscr i pt f or t he f i nal day ofRomer o- Gal i ndez' s sent enci ng, August 19, 2013, dur i ng whi ch thej udge di d not ask whet her Romer o- Gal i ndez r evi ewed t he PSR. Thi sdoes not mean t he j udge never di d; t her e ar e no t r anscr i pt spr ovi ded f or t he f i r st t wo days of t he sent enci ng hear i ng, J ul y 19and 23.

-12-


13/22

be when he got out . Def ense counsel ' s expr essed f ear was that a

f i f t een- year sent ence, gi ven Romer o- Gal i ndez' s age, woul d

ef f ect i vel y t ur n i nt o a l i f e sent ence. Ther e was no debat e about ,

or wor r y voi ced over , what t er m of super vi sed r el ease he woul d

f ace.

These t hi ngs combi ned compel us t o concl ude t hat Romer o-

Gal i ndez has f ai l ed t o sat i sf y hi s bur den t o show t hat i n l i ght of

t he mi s- st at ed t er m of super vi sed r el ease, "t he pr obabi l i t y of a

di f f er ent r esul t i s ' suf f i ci ent t o under mi ne conf i dence i n t he

out come' of t he pr oceedi ng. " Domi nguez Beni t ez, 542 U. S. at 83

( quot i ng St r i ckl and v. Washi ngt on, 466 U. S. 668, 694 ( 1984) ) .

The gui l t y pl ea st ands.

REASONABLENESS OF SENTENCE

The second hal f of Romer o- Gal i ndez' s appeal t akes ai mat

hi s sent ence. He di sput es i t s pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve

r easonabl eness, of f er i ng t he f ol l owi ng. Fi r st , Romer o- Gal i ndez

says hi s cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y set f or t h i n t he PSR, and ci t ed

at t he sent enci ng hear i ng by t he cour t , was mi scal cul at ed. Second,

he cl ai ms t he cour t i mper mi ssi bl y di sr egar ded t he Sent enci ng

Gui del i nes as a st ar t i ng poi nt . And f i nal l y, accor di ng t o Romer o-

Gal i ndez, t he j udge r el i ed on i mpr oper sent enci ng f act or s, ( e. g. ,

publ i c opi ni on and t he supposed l eni ent t r eat ment Romero- Gal i ndez

r ecei ved i n st at e cour t ) , whi l e put t i ng t oo much wei ght on hi s

pr i or convi ct i ons.

-13-


14/22

The gover nment ' s count er i s agai n l ess t han compl et e,

hi t t i ng j ust some of Romer o- Gal i ndez' s cl ai med er r or s. I n shor t ,

t he gover nment ar gues t hat over al l t he Gui del i nes cal cul at i on was

sound and t he cour t consi der ed pr oper f act or s, l i ke det er r ence and

t he ser i ous nat ur e of t he of f ense, when i t came up wi t h an

emi nent l y reasonabl e t went y year sent ence.

Our r evi ew i s f or abuse of di scr et i on, whi ch means

"di scerni ng whet her t he chal l enged sent ence i s pr ocedur al l y sound

and subst ant i vel y r easonabl e. " Uni t ed St at es v. Gal l ar do- Or t i z,

666 F. 3d 808, 811 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ; see al so Gal l v. Uni t ed St at es,

552 U. S. 38, 51 ( 2007) . We l ook f or procedur al bl under s, l i ke

i mpr oper Gui del i nes cal cul at i ons or an i nsuf f i ci ent expl anat i on

f r om t he j udge, as wel l as whet her t he sent ence i mposed i s i n f act

subst ant i vel y r easonabl e. Uni t ed St at es v. Pol i t ano, 522 F. 3d 69,

72 (1st Ci r . 2008) . " [ T] he l i nchpi n of a r easonabl e sent ence i s a

pl ausi bl e sent enci ng r at i onal e and a def ensi bl e r esul t . " Uni t ed

St at es v. Mar t i n, 520 F. 3d 87, 96 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

Wi t h t hese speci f i cat i ons i n mi nd, we t ake Romero-

Gal i ndez' s ar gument s i n t ur n.

i. Criminal History Calculation

Romer o- Gal i ndez, t hough he agr ees t hat hi s adj ust ed

of f ense l evel was cor r ect l y cal cul at ed, cl ai ms t hat hi s cr i mi nal

hi st or y scor e was mi st akenl y t al l i ed at 14, r esul t i ng i n a cr i mi nal

hi st ory of VI , when i t shoul d have been 9, whi ch woul d mean a

-14-


15/22

cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y of I V. We need not del ve t oo deepl y i nt o

t he par t i cul ar s of t he ar gument ; i t suf f i ces t o not e t hat Romer o-

Gal i ndez t hi nks pr obat i on, i n deci di ng what Gui del i nes pr ovi si ons

wer e appl i cabl e, di d not pr oper l y t ake i nt o account t hat he was

under ei ght een year s ol d when he commi t t ed hi s pr i or cr i mes. 6

Whether t hi s argument has mer i t i s not somethi ng we need t o get

i nt o because even assumi ng i t does, Romero- Gal i ndez cannot pr evai l .

" I f we f i nd an al l eged Gui del i ne er r or woul d not have

af f ect ed t he di st r i ct cour t ' s sent ence, we may af f i r m. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Mar sh, 561 F. 3d 81, 86 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . I n ot her wor ds,

we t hi nk t he al l eged er r or harml ess. Uni t ed St at es v. McGhee, 651

F. 3d 153, 158 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( ci t i ng Wi l l i ams v. Uni t ed St at es,

503 U. S. 193, 203 ( 1992) ) ( " ' [ O] nce t he cour t of appeal s has

deci ded t hat t he di st r i ct cour t mi sappl i ed t he Gui del i nes, a remand

i s appr opr i at e unl ess t he r evi ewi ng cour t concl udes, on t he r ecor d

as a whol e, t hat t he er r or was har ml ess, i . e. , t hat t he er r or di d

not af f ect t he di st r i ct cour t ' s sel ect i on of t he sent ence

i mposed. ' " ) . The r ecor d, t hough, must make t he i nnocuous natur e of

t he er r or unmi st akabl e. See Uni t ed St at es v. Or t i z, 741 F. 3d 288,

294 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ; McGhee, 651 F. 3d at 159.

6 The rel evant pr ovi si ons ar e U. S. S. G. 4A1. 1 and 4A1. 2,whi ch "ar e concer ned wi t h count i ng and wei ghi ng sentences ofi mpr i sonment t o est abl i sh a def endant ' s cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y, "wi t h one of t he var i abl es bei ng whet her t he ear l i er of f ense wascommi t t ed pr i or t o age ei ght een and whet her t he def endant wasconvi ct ed as an adul t . Uni t ed St ates v. McGhee, 651 F. 3d 153, 155-56 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

-15-


16/22

I t does j ust t hat her e. As we sai d above, t he j udge was

expl i ci t t hat he was not goi ng t o sent ence Romer o- Gal i ndez

accor di ng t o t he Gui del i nes. The j udge made t hi s poi nt pel l uci d

whi l e del vi ng i nt o Romer o- Gal i ndez' s cr i mi nal hi st or y. He not ed

t hat t he appl i cabl e cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y was VI and t hat

Romer o- Gal i ndez had i n excess of t hi r t een cr i mi nal hi st or y poi nt s.

[ App 100] The f ol l owi ng exchange t hen t ook pl ace:

THE COURT: He has i n excess of 13; i s t hatcor r ect ? I t doesn' t r eal l y make any di f f er encebecause t he Cour t i s goi ng t o pr ovi de ast at ut or y sent ence, not a gui del i ne sent ence.

THE PROBATI ON OFFI CER: 14 poi nt s.

THE COURT: 14. So he get s of f . He' s of f t hepage. Al l r i ght . But t hat ' s not i mpor t ant .

The sent enci ng j udge made i t appar ent t hat Romer o- Gal i ndez' s

cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y di d not af f ect t he ul t i mat e sent ence

i mposed. Fur t her mor e, t he j udge was f i r m i n hi s t hi nki ng t hat t he

Gui del i nes yi el ded t oo l eni ent of a sent ence ( mor e on t hi s bel ow) .

We t hi nk i t saf e to assume t hat i f t he j udge t hought t he puni shment

t oo per mi ssi ve at a cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y of VI , he woul d not

have gone f or t he even more permi ssi ve sentence i mposed by t he

supposedl y cor r ect cat egor y of I V. I ndeed, t he r ecor d suggest s t he

j udge mi ght not have f ound t he cat egor y of I V t o accurat el y r ef l ect

Romer o- Gal i ndez' s cr i mi nal hi st or y.

As such, assumi ng f or t he sake of argument t hat t here was

some er r or i n hi s cr i mi nal hi st or y cal cul at i on, t he r ecor d r eveal s

-16-


17/22

t hat i t di d not al t er t he di st r i ct cour t ' s sent ence sel ecti on.

See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Tavar es, 705 F. 3d 4, 27- 28 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) ( f i ndi ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o choose bet ween t he

conf l i ct i ng cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor i es pr of f er ed by the gover nment

and t he def ense was harml ess er r or as t he cour t made cl ear t hat t he

Gui del i nes sent enci ng r ange was i r r el evant t o t he sent ence i t was

goi ng t o hand down) .

ii. Attention to the Guidelines

Ci t i ng t he above di al ogue where t he sent enci ng j udge

i ndi cat ed t hat Romer o- Gal i ndez' s cr i mi nal hi st or y poi nt s "d[ i d] n' t

make a di f f erence" and were "not i mport ant , " Romero- Gal i ndez cl ai ms

t hat t he j udge i mpr oper l y di sr egar ded t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes as

a j umpi ng- of f poi nt .

Our case l aw i nst r uct s t hat t he Gui del i nes " ar e si mpl y

' t he st ar t i ng poi nt and . . . i ni t i al benchmar k' f or craf t i ng a

sent ence. " Uni t ed St at es v. Ki ng, 741 F. 3d 305, 308 ( 1st Ci r .

2014) ( quot i ng Gal l , 552 U. S. at 49) . Whi l e "a sent enci ng cour t

must ' gi ve r espect f ul consi der at i on t o t he Gui del i nes, Booker

per mi t s t he cour t t o t ai l or t he sent ence i n l i ght of ot her

st at ut or y concer ns as wel l . ' " Pepper v. Uni t ed St at es, 131 S. Ct .

1229, 1241 ( 2011) ( quot i ng Ki mbr ough v. Uni t ed St ates, 552 U. S. 85,

101 ( 2007) ) .

Here, t he j udge unambi guousl y i ndi cat ed t hat he was not

goi ng wi t h a Gui del i nes sent ence f or a var i et y of r easons ( mor e

-17-


18/22

f ul l y di scussed bel ow) . Thi s i s not t he same as di sr egar di ng t he

Gui del i nes as a st ar t i ng poi nt . At t he sent enci ng hear i ng, t he

j udge di st i nct l y went t hrough t he Gui del i nes comput at i on, det ai l i ng

Romer o- Gal i ndez' s base of f ense l evel , cr i mi nal hi st or y, st at us as

an ar med car eer cr i mi nal , accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y, t ot al

of f ense l evel , and gui del i ne sent ence r ange. The j udge i ndi cat ed

t hat he had r evi ewed t he PSR and i t s Gui del i nes comput at i ons, as

wel l as t he sent enci ng f act or s set f or t h i n 18 U. S. C. 3553. Far

f r omi ndi cat i ng i nadequat e at t ent i on t o t he Gui del i nes, t he r ecor d

shows t hat t he cour t consi der ed the opt i on pr esent ed by t he

Gui del i nes ( even i f t hey may have been cal cul at ed i ncor r ect l y) and

t hen, f or cl ear l y enumer at ed r easons, r ej ect ed i t as pr oduci ng an

over l y l eni ent sent ence. Thi s was an opt i on wel l wi t hi n i t s

pr er ogat i ve to take.

iii. Sentencing Factors

Fi nal l y, Romer o- Gal i ndez cri t i ci zes t he f actor s

consi der ed by t he sent enci ng j udge i n f ashi oni ng t he twent y year

sent ence, al l egi ng t hat t oo much wei ght was pl aced on hi s pr evi ous

cr i mes and t hei r cor r espondi ng sent ence, as wel l as publ i c

per cept i on. 7 We ar e unper suaded.

7 Romer o- Gal i ndez, wi t hout el abor at i on, f aul t s t he di st r i ctcour t f or not det ai l i ng t he 3553( a) f act or s. Even assumi ng t heargument devel oped enough t o pr eser ve, Romero- Gal i ndez does notpr evai l . An exhaust i ve sort i ng t hr ough t he f act or s one by one i snot t he appr oach demanded by our case l aw. Uni t ed States v.Apont e- Vel l n, 754 F. 3d 89, 94 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

-18-


19/22

A sent enci ng cour t ' s devi at i on f r om t he Gui del i nes

"shoul d t ypi cal l y be r oot ed ei t her i n t he nat ur e and ci r cumst ances

of t he of f ense or t he char act er i st i cs of t he of f ender . " Mar t i n,

520 F. 3d at 91; 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) ( 1) . The r ecor d r eveal s t hat

Romero- Gal i ndez' s sentence was grounded i n both.

For one, t he cour t honed i n on t he gr ave nat ur e of t he

of f ense Romero- Gal i ndez had commi t t ed. The cour t r ef l ected t hat

" t hi s i s a ser i ous case because i t i s an AK- 47, whi ch i s an

of f ensi ve weapon wi t h a magazi ne of over 30 and 11 bul l et s wi t hi n

t he magazi ne. " The cour t al so f ocused on t he ser i ous nat ur e of t he

cr i mes of Romer o- Gal i ndez' s yout h. The cour t not ed t hat , i n

ei ght een year s, " I have never had a def endant come i nt o my

cour t r oom wi t h f our mur der s. "

Whi l e Romer o- Gal i ndez f aul t s t he cour t f or hi ghl i ght i ng

t hese cr i mes, cl ai mi ng that t he j udge onl y emphasi zed t he number of

pr evi ous convi ct i ons as opposed t o t he ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng

t hem, t he r ecor d bel i es hi s cont ent i on. 8 The j udge was cl ear l y

8 Romer o- Gal i ndez ver y br i ef l y al l udes t hat t he cour t ' s f ocuson hi s previ ous cr i mes const i t ut ed i mper mi ssi bl e doubl e count i ngsi nce hi s base of f ense l evel was i ncr eased because of t he pr i orcr i mes. The doubl e count i ng r ubr i c seems a poor f i t . He i s notal l egi ng, f or i nst ance, t hat t he same under l yi ng f act s wer e appl i edvi a t wo separ at e Gui del i ne pr ovi si ons t o set a base l evel and t hen

enhance a sent ence. Rather Romero- Gal i ndez' s cr i mes were f actoredi nt o hi s base l evel ( U. S. S. G. 2K2. 1( a) ( 1) ) and t hen t hei rpar t i cul ar gr avi t y consi der ed by t he cour t as a f act or i ndet er mi ni ng how st r i ngent hi s non- Gui del i ne sent ence shoul d be. I nany event , asi de f r om st at i ng t hat t her e has been i mper mi ssi bl edoubl e count i ng and of f er i ng one unhel pf ul out of ci r cui t case,Romero- Gal i ndez goes no f ur t her . Such per f unct ory t r eat ment wai ves

-19-


20/22

concer ned wi t h t he ser i ous nat ur e of t he ear l i er cr i mes, not j ust

t hat t hey numbered f our . He underscor ed t hat t he ear l i er mi sdeeds

wer e f or f i r st and second degr ee mur der , i ncl udi ng a car j acki ng,

and t hat al l i nvol ved weapons. The f act t hat t he cur r ent cr i me and

t he pr evi ous ones al l i nvol ved weapons demonst r at ed, f or t he j udge,

t he def endant ' s "pr ocl i vi t y t owar ds weapons. " Fur t her mor e, t he

cour t di d not f orget t hat t he mur ders were commi t t ed over a dozen

year s ago i n Romer o- Gal i ndez' s yout h, r at her i t emphasi zed t hat

f act mul t i pl e t i mes.

Romer o- Gal i ndez al so aver s t hat t he cour t t r i ed t o

compensate f or a per cei ved over l y l eni ent st at e cour t sent ence f or

t he f our mur der s. We di sagr ee. To st ar t , as a gener al

pr oposi t i on, t her e i s not hi ng wr ong wi t h t he cour t f act or i ng a

generous pr i or sent ence i nt o t he equat i on. As we have expl ai ned,

"a sent enci ng cour t may . . . consi der whet her , i n a ser i es of past

convi ct i ons, t he puni shment appear s to f i t t he cr i me. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Fl or es- Machi cot e, 706 F. 3d 16, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . "I f

t he cour t concl udes t hat an asymmet r y exi st s whi ch r esul t s i n a

subst ant i al under est i mat i on of t he def endant ' s cr i mi nal hi st or y, i t

may var y t he sent ence upwar d t o ref l ect past l eni ency. "9 I d. I n

t he i ssue. See Randal l v. Laconi a, NH, 679 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r .2012) .

9 A caveat : i t woul d not be per mi ssi bl e i f a di st r i ct cour t"expl i ci t l y f ashi oned a f eder al sent ence i n or der t o i nf l uence t hemanner i n whi ch a sent ence i mposed by a l ocal court wasi mpl ement ed. " Uni t ed St at es v. Sant i ago- Ri ver a, 594 F. 3d 82, 86

-20-


21/22


22/22

( "Det er r ence i s wi del y r ecogni zed as an i mpor t ant f act or i n t he

sent enci ng cal cul us. ") .

That ends t hi s aspect of t he mat t er . Romer o- Gal i ndez had

a hi st or y of vi ol ent cr i mes and, upon i mper mi ssi bl y l eavi ng t he

st at e cust ody t hat t hose cr i mes l anded hi m i n, got hi s hands on an

AK- 47. We scar cel y t hi nk i t was unr easonabl e f or t he di st r i ct

j udge t o t hi nk a st at utor y mi ni mum sent ence was not adequat e.

Sent ences ar e not one si ze f i t s al l , i nst ead "t her e i s al most

al ways a r ange of r easonabl e sent ences f or any gi ven of f ense. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Sant i ago- Ri ver a, 744 F. 3d 229, 234 ( 1st Ci r . 2014)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Romer o- Gal i ndez' s sent ence

f al l s wel l wi t hi n t hat r ange.

CONCLUSION

Di scer ni ng no er r or t hat woul d ei t her i nval i dat e Romer o-

Gal i ndez' s pl ea, or r equi r e vacat i ng hi s sent ence, we af f i r m.

-22-

Documents

United States v. Romero-Galindez, 1st Cir. (2015)