Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Before
Thompson, Selya and Lipez,
Circuit Judges.
December 3, 2014
Defendant-appellant Edwin E.
After
presentence
investigation
report
(PSI
Report),
and
the
it.
The
two
men
abducted
the
woman,
stole
her
their
victim
with
gory
of
their
previous
maraudings.
The
victim's
nightmare
worsened
when,
after
the
-2-
his
officers).
mind
and
sped
away
(almost
hitting
the
police
maximum
sentence
of
25
years,
Count 1, which
charged
carjacking
adjustment
because
the
defendant
recklessly
created
for
id.
acceptance
responsibility,
see
id.
3E1.1.
7-year
mandatory
minimum
sentence.
Moreover,
any
-4-
sentence.
set [its] feelings and passions aside" and sentence the defendant
at or near the upper end of the GSR.
Following a thorough
substantive
reasonableness
of
his
sentence.
We
review
665 F.3d 212, 232 (1st Cir. 2011); United States v. Martin, 520
F.3d 87, 92 (1st Cir. 2008).
questions.
If
See id.
court's
interpretation
and
application
of
the
See
-5-
sentencing calculus.
This
contention fails.
What the court actually said during sentencing was that
it viewed the defendant's crimes "as much more serious [in Puerto
Rico] than if they had occurred in a less violent society."
weighing
the
impact
associated
with
particular
crime,
In
a
Rivera, 744 F.3d 229, 232-33 (1st Cir. 2014); United States v.
Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16, 23 (1st Cir. 2013) (collecting
cases).
Thus,
Id.
the
defendant
questions
the
factual
-6-
In the
appears to be true.
violent crime are more prevalent in other places than the court
realized,
that
does
not
detract
from
the
court's
reasoned
that
sentencing
possess
"cumulative
have
recognized
that
"[i]t
is
possible
for
sentencing judge to focus too much on the community and too little
on the individual."
What
happened here, however, does not cross into that forbidden terrain.
At the conclusion of the parties' presentations at sentencing, the
district court observed, "[o]ther than two child pornography cases
-8-
The court
protests
telephone
her
and
physical
father
after
struggles,
the
rape
(an
and
act
allowing
that
her
the
to
judge
acts.
The
analytic
centerpiece
of
the
court's
footing
for
either
conclusion
dominated
or
that
improperly
community-based
influenced
the
-9-
four showings: (1) that an error occurred (2) which was clear or
obvious and which not only (3) affected the defendant's substantial
rights, but also (4) seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings."
United States v.
The defendant
does not point to anything in the record to suggest that the court
would have sentenced him any differently absent the purported
error.
conclusion: the record indicates that the court would have varied
upward on count 2 whether or not it understood the minimum sentence
to be the guideline sentence.
-10-
sentence
is
unreasonable.4
substantively
When
reviewing
the
Santiago-
Id. at 92.
point
and
the
initial
benchmark"
for
crafting
an
reasonable
sentence
but
must
"make
an
individualized
Id. at 50.
18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1).
See
(internal
citations omitted)).
The second part of the defendant's assertion is belied by
the
record.
The
determination.
sentencing
court
made
an
individualized
carjacking,
recruited
an
accomplice
to
facilitate
the
crime,
stalked and hunted down the victim, carjacked and robbed her,
abducted her and held her hostage, and raped her. It further noted
that
the
defendant
attempted
to
avoid
police
intervention,
In
addition, the court observed that allowing the victim to call her
father after the rape gratuitously immersed family members in his
reign of terror.
-12-
He
In
summing up, the court said that a substantial upward variance was
warranted "to protect the public from further crimes by [the
defendant] and to address the issues of deterrence and punishment."
The court's reasoning was grounded solidly in the nature and
circumstances of the offense and furnished a plausible rationale
for its substantial upward variance.
18 U.S.C. 3553(a).
This is sometimes
-13-