united states v. millan-isaac, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/34

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 12- 1693,12- 1769

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

HERI BERTO MI LLN- I SAAC;J OS A. CABEZUDO- KUI LAN,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS 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 or eTor r uel l a, Bal dock, * and Kayat t a,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Megan Barbero, wi t h whomWi l mer Cut l er Pi cker i ng Hal e and Dor rLLP, Gr egor y P. Ter an, and Rachel I . Gur vi ch, wer e on br i ef f orappel l ant Cabezudo- Kui l an.

J ul i e Soder l und, f or appel l ant Mi l l n- I saac.J uan Car l os Reyes- Ramos, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at 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 or ney, 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.

Apr i l 18, 2014

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


2/34

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Def endant s- Appel l ant s J os

Cabezudo- Kui l an ( "Cabezudo") and Her i ber t o Mi l l n- I saac ( "Mi l l n" )

pl ed gui l t y t o ai di ng and abet t i ng a r obber y and possessi ng a

f i r ear m dur i ng a cr i me of vi ol ence. At back- t o- back sent enci ng

hear i ngs, t he di st r i ct cour t f i r st sent enced Mi l l n t o 180 mont hs

of i mpr i sonment and t hen sent enced Cabezudo t o 114 mont hs of

i mpr i sonment . I mmedi atel y af t er sent enci ng Cabezudo, however , t he

sent enci ng j udge sua spont e el ect ed to br i ng back Mi l l n and t o

decrease hi s sent ence f r om 180 to 120 mont hs of i mpr i sonment .

On appeal , bot h Appel l ant s chal l enge t hei r r espect i ve

sent ences. Cabezudo al l eges t hat t he di st r i ct cour t vi ol at ed t he

J ones Act by consi der i ng unt r ansl at ed, Spani sh- l anguage t ext

messages dur i ng hi s sent enci ng and t hat hi s sent ence i s

pr ocedur al l y unr easonabl e. Mi l l n cl ai ms t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

er r ed by sent enci ng hi m on t he basi s of f act ual i nf or mat i on

di scussed at Cabezudo' s sent enci ng hear i ng f or whi ch he was not

pr esent and t o whi ch he coul d not r espond. Af t er car ef ul

consi der at i on, we f i nd t hat t he di st r i ct cour t pl ai nl y er r ed i n

sent enci ng both Appel l ant s, and we t hus r emand f or r esent enci ng.

I. Background

A. Factual and procedural background

I n November of 2011, Cabezudo was ni net een years ol d,

wor ki ng as a wel der and suppl ement i ng hi s i ncome by l oani ng money

t o ot her s and char gi ng i nt er est . Mi l l n was t went y- one year s ol d

-2-


3/34

and wor ki ng par t - t i me as a sal es per son i n a cl ot hi ng st or e.

Cabezudo pr ovi ded Mi l l n wi t h a l oan of $150, t o be pai d back i n

i nst al l ment s of $40 every Sat ur day. When Mi l l n was unabl e t o make

one of t hese schedul ed payment s, Cabezudo suggest ed vi a t ext

message t hat Mi l l n commi t a r obbery i n or der t o get t he money t o

r epay hi m. Mi l l n agr eed on t he condi t i on t hat Cabezudo act as t he

get away dr i ver .

On November 26, 2011, Cabezudo drove t o Mi l l n' s home,

pi cked hi mup, and dr ove to a Bur ger Ki ng i n Bayamn, Puer t o Ri co.

That ni ght , whi l e Cabezudo wai t ed i n t he car , Mi l l n ent er ed t he

r est aur ant , showed t he cashi er an unl oaded f i r ear m, and t ol d her t o

gi ve hi m t he money f r om t he r egi st er . The cashi er compl i ed and

pl aced $114 on t he count er , whi ch Mi l l n gr abbed bef ore r unni ng out

t he door . The Bur ger Ki ng' s manager f ol l owed Mi l l n, however , and

he qui ckl y f l agged down near by pol i ce of f i cer s who wer e pat r ol l i ng

t he ar ea. Shor t l y af t er Mi l l n r eent er ed Cabezudo' s car , t he

pol i ce of f i cer s appr oached t he vehi cl e. Cabezudo t ur ned of f t he

i gni t i on, and t he duo sur r ender ed.

Fol l owi ng t hei r ar r est and pur suant t o t hei r pl ea

agr eement s, bot h Cabezudo and Mi l l n pl ed gui l t y to ai di ng and

abet t i ng each ot her i n t he commi ssi on of a r obber y i n vi ol at i on of

t he Hobbs Act , 18 U. S. C. 1951 ( "Count One") , and t o possessi ng a

f i r ear m dur i ng a cri me of vi ol ence i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

924( c) ( 1) ( A) ( "Count Two") . Cabezudo' s pl ea agr eement pr ovi ded

-3-


4/34

a base of f ense l evel of 20 f or Count One, r educed by 3 l evel s f or

accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y. Pur suant t o t he U. S. Sent enci ng

Gui del i nes, t hi s r esul t ed i n a Gui del i nes Sent ence Range ( "GSR") of

24- 30 mont hs f or Count One, and t he gover nment agreed t o r ecommend

a 24- mont h sent ence. For Count Two, t he Gui del i nes sent ence was

equi val ent t o t he mandat ory mi ni mum sent ence of 60 mont hs, whi ch

t he gover nment agr eed t o recommend, f or a t ot al r ecommendat i on of

84 mont hs of i mpr i sonment on t he t wo counts. The Pr e- Sentenci ng

Repor t ( "PSR") conf i r med t hese Gui del i nes cal cul at i ons.

Mi l l n' s pl ea agr eement r esul t ed i n an i dent i cal GSR of

24 t o 30 mont hs f or Count One, wi t h t he government si mi l ar l y

agr eei ng t o r ecommend a l ow- end sent ence of 24 mont hs of

i mpr i sonment . Unl i ke Cabezudo, however , Mi l l n pl ed gui l t y t o

"br andi shi ng" t he f i r ear m on Count Two, whi ch car r i ed a hi gher

mandat or y mi ni mum of 84 mont hs, f or a t ot al r ecommendat i on of 108

mont hs of i mpr i sonment .

B. Sentencing

On Apr i l 23, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t conduct ed back- t o-

back sent enci ng hear i ngs f or Mi l l n and Cabezudo, wi t h Mi l l n

appear i ng f i r st . The sent enci ng j udge cal cul at ed Mi l l n' s GSR as

t o Count One t o be 24 to 30 mont hs, and he not ed t hat t he st at ut ory

mi ni mumf or Count Two was seven year s ( 84 mont hs) of i mpr i sonment .

The j udge t hen deter mi ned t hat an upwar d var i ance was appr opr i at e

and announced a sent ence of 60 mont hs of i mpr i sonment on Count One

-4-


5/34

and 120 mont hs on Count Two, t o r un consecut i vel y. Def ense counsel

f or Mi l l n di d not obj ect t o t he sent ence, and Mi l l n l ef t t he

cour t r oom.

The di st r i ct cour t t hen pr oceeded t o sentence Cabezudo.

Cabezudo' s at t orney ar gued at l engt h t hat t he cour t shoul d accept

t he 84- month sent ence r ecommended i n t he pl ea agr eement . To t hi s

end, counsel f or Cabezudo pr oceeded t o summar i ze a t ext message

exchange bet ween Cabezudo and Mi l l n t hat he bel i eved showed t hat

Cabezudo' s deci si on t o par t i ci pat e i n t he r obber y was

uncharact er i st i c and a "spur of t he moment t hi ng" t hat he was

i ni t i al l y r el uct ant t o do. Accor di ng t o counsel , al t hough Cabezudo

f i r st suggest ed t he r obber y as a means f or Mi l l n t o pay hi m back,

when Mi l l n asked hi m t o j oi n i n t he r obber y, he hesi t at ed and

demonst r ated r el uct ance t o par t i ci pat e bef or e event ual l y agr eei ng.

Af t er counsel f i ni shed summar i zi ng t he messages, t he

sent enci ng j udge asked i f a wr i t t en ver si on of t he t ext messages

was avai l abl e. Def ense counsel coul d not f i nd a copy of t he t ext

messages, so t he sent enci ng j udge sai d t hat he was wi l l i ng t o

accept t he summar y as accur at e. The gover nment agr eed t hat def ense

counsel ' s summar y of t he t exts was accur at e. At t hat poi nt ,

however , t he Probat i on Of f i cer l ocat ed a copy of t he t ext messages

- - unt r ansl at ed and i n Spani sh - - and pr ovi ded i t t o t he sent enci ng

j udge. The j udge t hen r ead t he messages f r omt he bench and br i ef l y

di scussed t hem wi t h counsel .

-5-


6/34

At t he concl usi on of Cabezudo' s sent enci ng hear i ng, t he

di st r i ct cour t announced t hat i t was " goi ng t o i mpose the hi gh end

of t he Gui del i nes on t he r obber y, whi ch i s 30 mont hs. And I am

goi ng t o i mpose 84 mont hs on t he gun, consecut i ve. " When def ense

counsel pr ot est ed t hat t he pl ea agr eement ' s r ecommendat i on of 84

mont hs was suf f i ci ent , t he cour t r esponded i n an unusual manner ,

comment i ng t hat " t he sent ence I i mposed on t he ot her gent l eman

per haps i s t oo hi gh, and we' r e goi ng t o change them bot h. "

Then, i mmedi at el y af t er Cabezudo' s sent enci ng hear i ng

ended, t he cour t r ecal l ed Mi l l n. Dur i ng t he cour se of a mi nut e,

t he cour t conf i r med t hat Mi l l n' s counsel had been pr esent dur i ng

Cabezudo' s sent enci ng and not ed t hat hi s pr evi ousl y announced

sent ence was "t oo hi gh. " The j udge t hen st at ed t hat " [ o]n t he

basi s of what we were abl e to get t o know, on t he basi s of t he

sent ence of t he codef endant , and on the basi s of what we have

di scussed, I t hi nk per haps I shoul d l ower t he sent ence i mposed on

your cl i ent . " The di st r i ct cour t proceeded t o sent ence Mi l l n t o

30 mont hs on Count One and 90 mont hs on Count Two f or a combi ned

sent ence of 120 mont hs of i mpr i sonment . Mi l l n' s counsel t hanked

t he cour t , and t he pr oceedi ng concl uded.

On May 7, 2012, Cabezudo f i l ed a mot i on f or

r econsi derat i on, argui ng t hat hi s 114- mont h sent ence was

unr easonabl e i n l i ght of hi s hi st or y and t he ci r cumst ances of t he

of f ense. The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i on, st at i ng t hat "[ t ] he

-6-


7/34

r ecord at sent enci ng, and t he t ext messages exchanged bet ween t he

t wo def endant s and r ead by t he cour t conf i r m t hat t hi s was a

col dl y- pl anned r obber y. " Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

II. Analysis

On appeal , Cabezudo cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

r el i ance on unt r ansl ated, Spani sh- l anguage t ext messages at

sent enci ng vi ol at ed sect i on 42 of t he J ones Act , whi ch r equi r es

t hat "[ a] l l pl eadi ngs and pr oceedi ngs i n t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct

Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Puer t o Ri co . . . be conduct ed i n t he

Engl i sh l anguage. " 48 U. S. C. 864 ( " J ones Act " or " Engl i sh-

l anguage r equi r ement " ) . Addi t i onal l y, he ar gues t hat hi s sent ence

i s pr ocedur al l y unr easonabl e because t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o

cal cul at e t he appl i cabl e GSR and f ai l ed t o adequat el y expl ai n i t s

sent ence. Mi l l n cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by

consi der i ng new, mat er i al i nf or mat i on at hi s sent enci ng hear i ng

t hat he had no meani ngf ul oppor t uni t y t o r ebut . We addr ess t he

cl ai ms of each Appel l ant i n t ur n.

A. Cabezudo

1. The Jones Act

Cabezudo ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t vi ol at ed t he

J ones Act by r el yi ng on unt r ansl at ed, Spani sh- l anguage t ext

messages dur i ng sent enci ng. He suggest s t hat we must vacat e hi s

sent ence because t he unt r ansl at ed messages coul d have been out come-

det er mi nat i ve and we are unabl e t o r evi ew t hem on appeal . Bef ore

-7-


8/34

we can address t he mer i t s of Cabezudo' s ar gument , however , we must

f i r st addr ess t he gover nment ' s cont ent i on t hat Cabezudo ef f ect i vel y

wai ved hi s J ones Act cl ai m bel ow and cannot appeal f r om a

"si t uat i on he cr eat ed. " I n t he gover nment ' s vi ew, Cabezudo' s

f ai l ur e t o obj ect t o t he Spani sh- l anguage t ext s bef or e t he di st r i ct

cour t ought t o const i t ut e wai ver because Cabezudo' s counsel i nvi t ed

t he er r or when he "f i r st br ought up the t ext messages and

encour aged t he cour t t o r evi ew t he same. " We di sagree.

As an i ni t i al mat t er , we not e t hat " i t i s t he i ndependent

dut y of t he di st r i ct cour t t o make sur e t hat ' [ a] l l pl eadi ngs . . .

be conduct ed i n t he Engl i sh l anguage. ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a-

Rosar i o, 300 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( quot i ng 48 U. S. C. 864) .

Thi s dut y must not be t aken l i ght l y, as i t ensur es t hat t he

Di st r i ct of Puer t o Ri co r emai ns an i nt egr at ed par t of t he f eder al

j udi ci ar y. See Est ades- Negroni v. Assocs. Cor p. of N. Am. , 359

F. 3d 1, 2 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( di scussi ng t he i mpor t ance of t he

Engl i sh- l anguage r equi r ement ) . We have r epeat edl y character i zed

t he pol i cy i nt er est of i nt egr at i on as "t oo gr eat t o al l ow par t i es

t o conver t t hat cour t i nt o a Spani sh l anguage cour t at t hei r whi m, "

Puer t o Ri cans f or P. R. Par t y v. Dal mau, 544 F. 3d 58, 67 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) ( quot i ng Ri ver a- Rosar i o, 300 F. 3d at 8 n. 9) , and we r ei t er at e

t hat t he dut y of t he cour t t o ensure compl i ance wi t h t he J ones Act

i s not l essened i n cases wher e counsel acqui esces or even

-8-


9/34

encour ages t he di st r i ct cour t t o set asi de t he Engl i sh- l anguage

r equi r ement . Ri ver a- Rosar i o, 300 F. 3d at 8 n. 9.

Al t hough the di st r i ct cour t ' s dut y r emai ns unchanged even

i n cases wher e def ense counsel encour ages t he cour t t o vi ol ate t he

J ones Act , t he r ecor d makes cl ear t hat t here was no such

encour agement i n t hi s case, and t hat no wai ver occur r ed. As t he

gover nment concedes, wai ver r equi r es t he " i nt ent i onal

r el i nqui shment of a known r i ght , " not a mer e f ai l ur e t o obj ect .

Uni t ed St at es v. Tor r es- Rosar i o, 658 F. 3d 110, 115- 16 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) . I n an ef f or t t o demonst r at e i nt ent i onal r el i nqui shment , t he

government cl ai ms t hat Cabezudo' s counsel encour aged t he cour t t o

r evi ew t he unt r ansl at ed messages at sent enci ng. The r ecor d shows

ot her wi se. Whi l e Cabezudo' s counsel cer t ai nl y i nt r oduced t he

subj ect of t he t ext messages at sent enci ng, he di d so by

summar i zi ng t he cont ent s of t he messages i n Engl i sh. The di st r i ct

cour t t hen asked def ense counsel i f he had a copy of t he messages

wi t h hi m, counsel expl ai ned t hat he di d not , and t he di st r i ct cour t

st at ed t hat i t was wi l l i ng t o accept def ense counsel ' s summar y as

accur at e. At t hi s poi nt , t he Pr obat i on Of f i cer - - not Cabezudo - -

r et r i eved her own copy of t he unt r ansl ated messages and pr ovi ded i t

t o t he sent enci ng j udge f or r evi ew. Far f r omencour agi ng t he cour t

t o r ead t he messages, Cabezudo' s counsel sai d he was " concerned

t hat i t ' s not t hat si mpl e of a document , " not i ng t hat i t i nvol ved

sent and r ecei ved messages and t hat he want ed t o "make sur e i t ' s

-9-


10/34

cl ar i f i ed" and "make sur e t he Cour t got t he r i ght message. " The

sent enci ng j udge responded by t el l i ng Cabezudo t o del i ver hi s

al l ocut i on. On t hese f act s, we cannot hol d t hat Cabezudo

i nt ent i onal l y r el i nqui shed hi s J ones Act cl ai m, and we t her ef or e

pr oceed t o anal yze t hat cl ai m on t he mer i t s.

"I t i s cl ear , t o t he poi nt of per f ect t r anspar ency, t hat

f eder al cour t pr oceedi ngs must be conduct ed i n Engl i sh. " Ri ver a-

Rosar i o, 300 F. 3d at 5. As a consequence, f eder al j udges must not

consi der any unt r ansl at ed document s pl aced bef ore t hem. Gonzl ez-

de- Bl asi ni v. Fami l y Dep' t , 377 F. 3d 81, 89 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . Thi s

r ul e appl i es wi t h equal f or ce t o al l st ages of f eder al cour t

pr oceedi ngs, i ncl udi ng sent enci ng hear i ngs. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Mescual - Cr uz, 387 F. 3d 1, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( hol di ng t hat f ai l ur e

t o t r ansl at e def endant ' s Spani sh- l anguage al l ocut i on at sent enci ng

vi ol at ed t he J ones Act ) . We t her ef or e hol d t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

er r ed by accept i ng and consi der i ng an unt r ansl ated copy of t he t ext

messages at Cabezudo' s sent enci ng hear i ng.

Our f i ndi ng of er r or does not end t he mat t er , however , as

not al l J ones Act vi ol at i ons r equi r e r ever sal . Vi ol at i ons of t he

J ones Act "const i t ut e r eversi bl e er r or whenever t he appel l ant can

demonst r ate t hat t he unt r ansl at ed evi dence has t he pot ent i al t o

af f ect t he di sposi t i on of an i ssue r ai sed on appeal . " Dal mau, 544

-10-


11/34

F. 3d at 67 ( quot i ng Ri ver a- Rosar i o, 300 F. 3d at 10) . 1 "Absent that

pot ent i al , t her e i s no pr ej udi ce f r om t he vi ol at i on of t he J ones

Act t hat war r ant s r el i ef . " Ri ver a- Rosar i o, 300 F. 3d at 10.

Si mi l ar l y, i f t he unt r ansl at ed evi dence i s mer el y cumul at i ve, any

pr ej udi ce t o t he par t i es caused by t hi s cour t ' s i nabi l i t y t o r evi ew

1 The gover nment argues t hat Ri ver a- Rosar i o' s r ever si bl e er r orr ul e f or unpr eser ved cl ai ms ought not t o appl y because t hi s ci r cui tconf i ned Ri ver a- Rosar i o t o i t s f act s i n Uni t ed St at es v. Mor al es-

Mader a, 352 F. 3d 1, 10 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) , and we have consi st ent l yr evi ewed unpr eser ved J ones Act cl ai ms f or pl ai n er r or ever si nce.The gover nment i s i ncor r ect on bot h poi nt s.

Fi r st , Mor al es- Mader a di st i ngui shed Ri ver a- Rosar i o but di d notconf i ne i t t o i t s f act s. Accor di ng t o Mor al es- Mader a, whi chdecl i ned t o appl y Ri ver a- Rosar i o' s r ever si bl e er r or r ul e andi nst ead r evi ewed f or pl ai n er r or , "t he key di st i nct i on" bet weenRi ver a- Rosar i o and Moral es- Mader a was t hat t he f ormer i nvol ved at ot al f ai l ur e t o t r ansl at e cri t i cal Spani sh- l anguage evi dence att r i al , whi l e i n t he l at t er case, t he j ur y was pr ovi ded wi t h t henecessar y t r ansl at i ons at t r i al and t he f ai l ur e t o ent er t hose

t r ansl at i ons i nt o evi dence was subj ect t o cur e vi a Feder al Rul e ofAppel l at e Pr ocedur e 10 ( "Rul e 10" ) . 352 F. 3d at 10. I n Cabezudo' scase, as i n Ri ver a- Rosar i o, t he Spani sh- l anguage evi dence was nevert r ansl at ed bel ow, maki ng Rul e 10 i nappl i cabl e.

Second, as t hi s cour t ' s most r ecent J ones Act anal ysi s makescl ear , Ri ver a- Rosar i o' s r ever s i bl e er r or r ul e i s st i l l bi ndi ng i nt hi s ci r cui t . See Dal mau, 544 F. 3d at 67 ( ci t i ng Ri ver a- Rosar i oand r ever si ng wi t hout evi dence of any obj ect i on i n t he di st r i ctcour t , so as t o guar d agai nst par t i es at t hei r whi m t ur ni ng t heUni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t i n Puer t o Ri co i nt o a Spani sh l anguagecour t ) . To t he ext ent t hat any of our i nt er veni ng opi ni ons i mpl y

t hat Mor al es- Mader a al t er ed t he st andar d of r evi ew expr essl y setf or t h i n Ri ver a- Rosar i o and as r ei nf or ced most r ecent l y i n Dal mauf or cases where essent i al Spani sh- l anguage evi dence was nevert r ansl at ed bel ow, we decl i ne t o f ol l ow t hem. See Uni t ed St at es v.Li zar do, 445 F. 3d 73, 88 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( f i ndi ng t hat t hi s cour ti s bound by i t s precedent , "whi ch onl y an en banc cour t canchange") .

-11-


12/34

unt r ansl at ed evi dence i s i nconsequent i al and wi l l not r equi r e

r ever sal . See i d.

I n t hi s case, t he sent enci ng j udge expr essl y st at ed when

denyi ng Cabezudo' s mot i on f or r econsi der at i on t hat " [ t ] he r ecor d at

sent enci ng, and t he t ext messages exchanged bet ween t he t wo

def endant s and r ead by t he cour t conf i r m t hat t hi s was a col dl y-

pl anned r obber y. " I t i s t hus r eadi l y appar ent t hat t he t ext

messages di d bear on an i ssue t hat t he cour t f ound di sposi t i ve at

sent enci ng: namel y, Cabezudo' s pl anni ng of t he r obber y.

Never t hel ess, t he government argues t hat we must af f i r mbecause any

pr ej udi ce caused by t he cour t ' s consi der at i on of t he unt r ansl at ed

messages was i nconsequent i al gi ven t he pur el y cor r oborat i ve natur e

of t he messages. We agr ee.

Al t hough Cabezudo ar gues t hat t he unt r ansl at ed messages

coul d have been out come- det er mi nat i ve because t hey were " t he onl y

sour ce t o whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t r ef er r ed f or i t s i nf or mat i on

r egar di ng t he pl anni ng of t he of f ense, " t he r ecor d does not suppor t

hi s cl ai m. 2 As an i ni t i al mat t er , Cabezudo i gnor es t wo i mpor t ant

2 Si mi l ar l y unsuppor t ed by t he r ecor d i s Cabezudo' s asser t i on t hatr ever sal i s appr opr i at e because def ense counsel and t he di st r i ctcour t di sagr eed as t o t he pr oper "i nt er pr et at i on" of t he t extmessages. I n t r ut h, what Cabezudo cal l s a di sput e over t he meani ng

of t he unt r ansl ated t ext messages i s more accur at el y descr i bed asa compl ai nt t hat t he di st r i ct cour t put t oo much wei ght on t he f actt hat Cabezudo suggest ed Mi l l n commi t a r obber y and t oo l i t t l ewei ght on t he f act t hat he was hesi t ant t o par t i ci pat e and onl ysuggest ed i t because he knew Mi l l n r out i nel y di d such t hi ngs. Ther ecord shows, however , t hat t he sent enci ng j udge under st ood andaccept ed both f act s. The cour t expr essl y acknowl edged t hat

-12-


13/34

sour ces of i nf ormat i on: t he PSR, and t he st atement s of Cabezudo' s

counsel at sent enci ng. The PSR - - t o whi ch Cabezudo di d not obj ect

- - descr i bes t he pl anni ng of t he event i n det ai l and i n a manner

ent i r el y consi st ent wi t h t he di scussi on at sent enci ng.

Speci f i cal l y, t he PSR st at es t hat Cabezudo knew Mi l l n had r obbed

bef or e, and t hat hi s desi r e t o be r epai d pr ompt ed hi m t o suggest

t hat Mi l l n commi t a r obber y. He subsequent l y pi cked up Mi l l n,

dr ove t o t he Bur ger Ki ng, and wai t ed i n t he car t o act as t he

get away dr i ver i n or der t o f aci l i t at e t he cr i me.

Turni ng t o t he t ext message summar y pr ovi ded by

Cabezudo' s counsel at sent enci ng, we f i nd a det ai l ed di scussi on of

pr eci sel y t he same ver si on of event s:

[ DEFENSE COUNSEL] : [ H] e says, l i st en, whydon' t you go do one of t hose [ r obber i es] t hatyou do.

THE COURT: Who says t hat ?

[ DEFENSE COUNSEL] : [ Cabezudo] says t hat .

THE COURT: Why don' t you go and r ob someone.

[ DEFENSE COUNSEL] : He says, t hat ' s not mypr obl em. . . . Get t he money. And [ Mi l l n]says, al l r i ght . You have t o come wi t h me.

. . . .

Cabezudo was not t he "i nt el l ect ual aut hor " of t he cr i me and t hat hemay have never r obbed bef ore, unl i ke hi s codef endant . That t hecour t ul t i mat el y el ect ed to pl ace gr eat er wei ght on the undi sput edf act s t hat Cabezudo suggest ed the robber y, pi cked up Mi l l n, anddr ove hi m t o commi t t he robber y does not evi dence any f actualdi sagr eement as t o t he cont ent of t he unt r ansl at ed messages.

-13-


14/34

THE COURT: You t ol d me hi msel f he pl ant ed t hei dea i n t he ot her one. He was l endi ng moneyf or i nt er est . . . . And t he guy' s not payi nghi m. And t hen he t el l s hi m, why don' t you doone of t hese pal i t os, one of t hese r obber i esyou make.

. . . .

[ DEFENSE COUNSEL] : [ Cabezudo] says i t i npassi ng, l i ke, l i st en, t hat ' s not my pr obl em.Li ke, you' r e al ways r obbi ng Bur ger Ki ngs. Gor ob a Bur ger Ki ng.

The gover nment subsequent l y agr eed t hat def ense counsel ' s summar y

was accur ate, and t he cour t accept ed i t as such.

When t he sent enci ng j udge di d l ater r ead t he unt r ansl ated

messages f r om t he bench, 3 he obser ved that " [ o]n one occasi on he

says, you don' t have any j ob t o do t oday, pal i t o, meani ng a

r obber y, because I ' m r eal l y act i ve and I need t he money. " Def ense

counsel r esponded by sayi ng "we' ve al r eady di scussed t hat wi t h t he

Cour t . We' ve al r eady addr essed t hat , J udge. That ' s exact l y what

we t ol d t he Cour t . " As def ense counsel ' s own st atement s show, t he

unt r ansl ated t ext messages wer e cumul at i ve, servi ng onl y t o f ur t her

cor r oborat e bot h t he PSR and t he Engl i sh- l anguage t ext message

summary pr ovi ded by def ense counsel . Accor di ngl y, we f i nd t hat any

pr ej udi ce r esul t i ng f r omt he di st r i ct cour t ' s consi der at i on of t he

3 The sent enci ng j udge i ni t i al l y expr essed conf usi on as t o who hadsent and recei ved t he messages he was r eadi ng, but t he governmentqui ckl y cor r ect ed t he cour t by st at i ng t hat Mi l l n sent t he messagesayi ng t hat t he Bur ger Ki ng woul d be a "pi ece of cake. " Def ensecounsel agr eed, addi ng t hat i t r ei nf or ced t hei r ear l i er poi nt t hatMi l l n encour aged Cabezudo t o j oi n i n t he r obber y.

-14-


15/34

unt r ansl at ed messages was i nconsequent i al and does not const i t ut e

r ever si bl e er r or . See Ri ver a- Rosar i o, 300 F. 3d at 10

( char act er i zi ng as i nconsequent i al t he pr ej udi ce r esul t i ng f r om

unt r ansl at ed evi dence t hat i s cumul at i ve) .

2. Reasonableness

Havi ng di sposed of Cabezudo' s J ones Act cl ai m, we t ur n

now t o consi der t he r easonabl eness of hi s sent ence. Cabezudo

ar gues t hat hi s sent ence i s procedur al l y unr easonabl e f or t wo

r easons: f i r st , t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o cal cul at e t he

appl i cabl e GSR, and second, t he cour t di d not adequat el y expl ai n

i t s sent ence.

Typi cal l y, we r evi ew cr i mi nal sentences f or

r easonabl eness under an abuse- of - di scr et i on st andar d. Gal l v.

Uni t ed St ates, 552 U. S. 38, 51 ( 2007) . Wher e no obj ect i on was

r ai sed at sent enci ng, however , we r evi ew f or pl ai n er r or . Uni t ed

St ates v. Fer nndez- Her nndez, 652 F. 3d 56, 71 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzl ez- Cast i l l o, 562 F. 3d 80, 82 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) . To sur vi ve pl ai n- er r or r evi ew and mer i t r esent enci ng, a

def endant must make f our showi ngs: ( 1) an er r or occur r ed, ( 2) t hat

was cl ear or obvi ous, ( 3) t hat af f ect ed hi s subst ant i al r i ght s, and

( 4) t hat ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c

r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. Uni t ed St at es v. Ol ano, 507

U. S. 725, 732- 37 ( 1993) . Because Cabezudo di d not r ai se any cl ai m

-15-


16/34

of pr ocedur al er r or bel ow, we revi ew hi s cl ai ms under t he demandi ng

pl ai n- er r or st andar d of r evi ew.

Our r evi ew of a cr i mi nal sent ence' s pr ocedur al

r easonabl eness begi ns by consi der i ng whet her t he cour t commi t t ed a

ser i ous pr ocedur al er r or , such as "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, t r eat i ng t he

Gui del i nes as mandat or y, f ai l i ng t o consi der t he 18 U. S. C.

3553( a) f act or s, sel ect i ng a sent ence based on cl ear l y er r oneous

f act s, or f ai l i ng t o adequat el y expl ai n t he chosen sent ence- -

i ncl udi ng an expl anat i on f or any devi at i on f r om t he Gui del i nes

r ange. " Uni t ed St at es v. I nnar el l i , 524 F. 3d 286, 292 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) . Accor di ngl y, we st ar t wi t h Cabezudo' s cl ai m t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t pl ai nl y er r ed by f ai l i ng t o cal cul at e t he appl i cabl e

Gui del i nes sent ence.

Al t hough t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes ar e now advi sor y

r at her t han mandat or y, di st r i ct cour t s ar e st i l l r equi r ed t o "begi n

al l sent enci ng pr oceedi ngs by cor r ect l y cal 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 has

cor r ect l y cal cul at ed t he appl i cabl e GSR and eval uat ed t he f act or s

set out i n 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) can i t pr oper l y exer ci se i t s

di scr et i on t o sent ence a def endant wi t hi n or out si de t he appl i cabl e

Gui del i nes r ange. Far f r oma meani ngl ess exer ci se, t he r equi r ement

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t begi n by cor r ect l y cal cul at i ng t he GSR

ser ves an i mpor t ant f unct i on; i t pr ovi des a " f r amewor k or st ar t i ng

-16-


17/34

poi nt " t o gui de t he exer ci se of t 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 amework gi ves t he sent enci ng j udge "an i dea of t he sent ences

i mposed on equi val ent of f ender s el sewher e, " whi ch i n tur n

"pr omot e[ s] uni f or mi t y and f 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 ee t o i mpose non- Gui del i nes sent ences i n

appr opr i at e cases, "di st r i ct cour t s must st i l l gi ve r espectf ul

consi der at i on t o t he now- advi sor y Gui del i nes ( and t hei r

accompanyi ng pol i cy st atement s) . " Pepper v. Uni t ed St ates, 131 S.

Ct . 1229, 1247 ( 2011) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

At Cabezudo' s sent enci ng hear i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t

announced t hat i t was "goi ng to i mpose the hi gh end of t he

gui del i nes on t he r obber y, whi ch i s t he 30 mont hs. " Thi s sol i t ar y

st at ement const i t ut es t he cour t ' s onl y r ef er ence t o the appl i cabl e

GSR at Cabezudo' s sent enci ng. The di st r i ct cour t never i dent i f i ed

t he l ow end of t he GSR f or Count One, nor di d i t i dent i f y

Cabezudo' s cr i mi nal hi st or y cat egor y or of f ense l evel . Wor se yet ,

t he cour t made no ref erence what soever t o t he Gui del i nes Sent ence

f or Count Two bef or e i mposi ng a sent ence of 84 mont hs on t hat Count

- - a f ul l t wo year s hi gher t han t he Gui del i nes sent ence of 60

mont hs. See U. S. Sent enci ng Gui del i nes Manual 2K2. 4( b) ( " [ I ] f

t he def endant . . . was convi ct ed of vi ol at i ng sect i on 924( c) . . .

-17-


18/34

of t i t l e 18, Uni t ed St at es Code, t he gui del i ne sent ence i s t he

mi ni mum t er m of i mpr i sonment r equi r ed by st at ut e. " ) .

The gover nment , i n an ef f or t t o per suade us t hat t he

sent enci ng j udge di d cal cul ate t he appl i cabl e GSR f or Count Two,

poi nt s us t o t he cour t ' s comment at t he end of t he hear i ng t hat i t

want ed t o cl ar i f y t hat i t di d not use any depar t ur es because i t saw

no r eason t o, but t hat "when you l ook at i t , t he t r ut h of t he

mat t er i s t hi s i s a var i ance case. " The gover nment r easons t hat "a

var i ance case" must have r ef er r ed t o Count Two because Count One

was a wi t hi n- Gui del i nes sent ence. Fr omt hi s, t he gover nment posi t s

t hat t he cour t must have known that i t was sent enci ng out si de of

t he Gui del i nes on Count Two, whi ch i n t ur n suggest s t hat t he cour t

pr oper l y cal cul at ed t he appl i cabl e Gui del i nes bef or e sent enci ng

Cabezudo. We ar e not per suaded. 4

Even i f we wer e cer t ai n t hat t he di st r i ct cour t knew t hat

i t was i mposi ng a var i ant sent ence on Count Two, t he sent enci ng

t r anscr i pt gi ves no i ndi cat i on t hat t he cour t chose t o do so af t er

det er mi ni ng t he cor r ect Gui del i nes sent ence. Taki ng t he

4 Si mi l ar l y unconvi nci ng i s t he gover nment ' s argument t hat weshoul d i nf er f r om t he cour t ' s di scussi on of t he appl i cabl eGui del i nes at Mi l l n' s sent enci ng hear i ng t hat i t must have known

t he cor r ect Gui del i nes sent ence f or Cabezudo. Cr i t i cal l y, t hi sar gument i gnor es t he f act t hat Mi l l n' s Gui del i nes sent ence f orCount Two was 84 mont hs whi l e Cabezudo' s was 60 mont hs. I fanyt hi ng, t he f act t hat t he di st r i ct cour t sent enced Cabezudo i n amanner consi st ent wi t h Mi l l n' s Gui del i nes sent ence f or Count Two- - af t er cal cul at i ng onl y Mi l l n' s Gui del i nes sent ence - - i saddi t i onal cause f or concer n.

-18-


19/34

gover nment ' s l ogi c at f ace val ue, we can onl y assume t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t t hought t he Gui del i nes advi sed somet hi ng ot her t han

t he sent ence i mposed. Thi s does not suf f i ce. Even wher e a

di st r i ct cour t concl udes t hat a var i ant sent ence i s appr opr i at e, i t

i s st i l l essent i al t hat t he cour t begi n by cal cul at i ng t he cor r ect

GSR. Uni t ed St at es v. Or t i z, 741 F. 3d 288, 294 ( 1st Ci r . 2014)

( r emandi ng despi t e di st r i ct cour t ' s st at ed i nt ent i on t o "do a smal l

var i ance" wher e di st r i ct cour t had i mpr oper l y cal cul at ed t he

appl i cabl e GSR) .

Gi ven t he di st r i ct cour t ' s t ot al f ai l ur e at sent enci ng t o

cal cul at e t he appl i cabl e Gui del i nes sent ence f or Count Two, we ar e

f or ced t o concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed pr ocedur al

er r or . We t ur n now t o consi der t he consequences of t hi s er r or . As

we have pr evi ousl y made cl ear , a di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o

cal cul at e concl usi vel y a def endant ' s GSR i s " a ser i ous pr ocedur al

er r or . " Uni t ed St at es v. Tavar es, 705 F. 3d 4, 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2013)

( ci t i ng Gal l , 552 U. S. at 51) . Accor di ngl y, a f i ndi ng t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t so er r ed "wi l l usual l y r equi r e r esent enci ng. "

Rodr guez, 630 F. 3d at 41. Never t hel ess, t he f act t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed such a ser i ous procedur al er r or does not

aut omat i cal l y ent i t l e Cabezudo t o r esent enci ng. Tavar es, 705 F. 3d

at 25.

I n Tavar es, t hi s cour t f ound t hat r esent enci ng was not

r equi r ed wher e t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by f ai l i ng t o concl usi vel y

-19-


20/34

determi ne t he appl i cabl e GSR. 705 F. 3d at 25- 28. We r easoned t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o choose t he cor r ect GSR was har ml ess

er r or because t he cour t cor r ect l y cal cul at ed the two pot ent i al GSRs

as r ecommended by t he par t i es bef or e cl ear l y st at i ng t hat i t was

goi ng t o sent ence i n such a way t hat t he Gui del i nes cal cul at i on di d

not mat t er ; t he di st r i ct cour t t hen i mposed a sent ence above bot h

of t he suggest ed Gui del i nes r anges, ci t i ng t he nat ur e of t he

of f ense and t he goal s of sent enci ng. I d. at 27- 28. Si gni f i cant l y,

we f ound t hat t he sent enci ng j udge i n Tavar es " di d not f ai l

compl et el y t o cal cul at e Mr . Tavar es' s gui del i nes sent enci ng r ange

or i mpose hi s sent ence wi t hout any consi der at i on of t he Gui del i nes.

. . . The di st r i ct cour t cl ear l y under st ood t he opt i ons wi t hi n t he

possi bl e gui del i nes cal cul at i ons and cl ear l y r ej ect ed al l of t hem

as yi el di ng t oo l eni ent a sent ence. " I d. at 27. We al so not ed

t hat " [ c] ases i n whi ch r ever si bl e er r or has been f ound i nvol ve[ d]

f ar l ess awar eness of t he appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange t han we f i nd

her e, " and t hat Tavar es' s case "st ands i n st ar k cont r ast t o t ypi cal

cases wher e a di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o cal cul at e a def endant ' s

gui del i nes sent enci ng r ange has war r ant ed a remand f or

r esent enci ng. " I d. at 28 n. 37 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Peebl es,

624 F. 3d 344, 347 ( 6t h Ci r . 2010) ) , as a "t ypi cal " case wher e

r esent enci ng was requi r ed because nei t her t he at t orneys nor t he

di st r i ct cour t addr essed t he appl i cabl e GSR at al l dur i ng t he

sent enci ng hear i ng) .

-20-


21/34

I n Cabezudo' s case, however , t he di st r i ct cour t di d "f ai l

compl et el y t o cal cul at e [ hi s] gui del i nes sent enci ng r ange" and

seemi ngl y i mposed i t s sent ence f or Count Two "wi t hout any

consi der at i on of t he Gui del i nes. " See i d. at 27; see al so Or t i z,

741 F. 3d at 294. Accor di ngl y, t hi s i s pr eci sel y t he ki nd of

" t ypi cal " case t hat we noted i n Tavar es woul d r equi r e r emand f or

r esent enci ng. Thus, we f i nd t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s t ot al

f ai l ur e t o cal cul ate t he appl i cabl e GSR f or Count Two was

r easonabl y l i kel y t o have i nf l uenced Cabezudo' s sent ence and t hat

i t i s appr opr i at e t o r emand f or r esent enci ng.

Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t di d l at er cal cul at e t he

appl i cabl e GSR i n i t s wr i t t en st at ement of r easons, t hi s bel at ed

consi der at i on r ai ses mor e concer ns t han i t r esol ves, as t he cour t

wr ot e ther ei n t hat i t had sent enced Cabezudo to a wi t hi n- Gui del i nes

sent ence. I n f act , t he 84- mont h sent ence i mposed by t he cour t f or

Count Two exceeded t he appl i cabl e Gui del i nes sent ence by t wo year s.

Fol l owi ng on t he heel s of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o cal cul at e

t he appl i cabl e GSR, t he cour t ' s evi dent conf usi on about t he nat ur e

of t he sent ence i mposed i s t r oubl i ng and f ur t her r ei nf or ces our

bel i ef t hat r esent enci ng i s necessar y.

At t he r i sk of pi l i ng on, we al so not e t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s handl i ng of t he st at ement of r easons f or m r eveal s anot her

er r or . By st at ut e, whenever a di st r i ct cour t i mposes a sent ence

out si de t he appl i cabl e GSR, t he cour t must al so st at e t he "speci f i c

-21-


22/34

r eason f or t he i mposi t i on of a sent ence di f f er ent f r om t hat

descr i bed, whi ch r easons must al so be st at ed wi t h speci f i ci t y i n a

st atement of r easons f orm. " 18 U. S. C. 3553( c) ; see al so Peugh v.

Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2072, 2084 ( 2013) ( " [ A] di st r i ct cour t

var yi ng f r om t he Feder al Gui del i nes shoul d pr ovi de an expl anat i on

adequat e t o t he ext ent of t he depar t ur e" ) ; Gal l , 552 U. S. at 51

( cl assi f yi ng as "si gni f i cant pr ocedur al er r or " a di str i ct cour t ' s

f ai l ur e " t o adequat el y expl ai n t he chosen sent ence- - i ncl udi ng an

expl anat i on f or any devi at i on f r omt he Gui del i nes r ange") . I n t hi s

case, however , t he cour t f ai l ed t o of f er any wr i t t en expl anat i on

f or i t s sent ence what soever . The cour t l ef t bl ank t he sect i ons of

t he st at ement of r easons f or m cal l i ng f or t he cour t t o expl ai n i t s

non- Gui del i nes sent ence, and i t i nst ead checked a box i ndi cat i ng

t hat i t had i mposed a wi t hi n- Gui del i nes sent ence. Thus, t he

cour t ' s wr i t t en st at ement of r easons f or i t s sent ence - - or , mor e

pr eci sel y, t he l ack t her eof - - i s i nadequat e as a mat t er of l aw.

As we have al r eady determi ned t hat r esent enci ng i s

appr opr i at e due t o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o cal cul at e t he

appl i cabl e GSR, we need not pr ess on t o consi der whet her t he

cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de a wr i t t en st at ement of r easons i n l i ght

of i t s l i mi t ed or al expl anat i on5 f or an above- Gui del i nes sent ence

5 At t he sent enci ng hear i ng, t he j udge' s expl anat i on of Cabezudo' ssent ence took t he f ol l owi ng f or m:

You got me t o l ower hi mf r om180 i n my mi nd t o 114. . . .He was t he one who pi cked hi m up, t ook hi m t o t he pl ace,

-22-


23/34

const i t ut es pl ai n er r or . Thus, al t hough we expr ess some

r eservat i ons as t o t he adequacy of t he expl anat i on i n t hi s case, we

go no f ur t her . 6

We now t ur n our at t ent i on t o Mi l l n.

B. Milln

For t he f i r st t i me on appeal , Mi l l n ar gues t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed at sent enci ng by consi der i ng evi dence and

i nf or mat i on of whi ch he had no not i ce. Speci f i cal l y, Mi l l n

obj ect s t o t he cour t ' s r el i ance on: ( 1) t he gover nment ' s pr of f er at

sent enci ng r egardi ng t he i mpact of t he r obber y on t he Bur ger Ki ng

cashi er , and (2) t he t ext messages and ot her evi dence of

compar at i ve r esponsi bi l i t y di scussed at codef endant Cabezudo' s

sent enci ng. Ar gui ng t hat he had no not i ce of ei t her pr i or t o hi s

own sent enci ng hear i ng - - and t hus no meani ngf ul oppor t uni t y t o

r espond - - Mi l l n cont ends t hat r ever sal i s r equi r ed. As Mi l l n

who suggest ed t he robbery, make one of your pal i t os soyou can pay t he money you owe me back. . . . [ Y] ou wi l lnot i ce t hat I di d not make any use of depar t ur e, becauseI di dn' t f i nd t hat t her e was any real r eason, anypar t i cul ar r eason t o depar t . Per haps 5K 2. 0. But whenyou - - when you l ook at i t , t he t r ut h of t he mat t er i st hi s i s a var i ance case.

6 We note t hat our f i ndi ng t hat Cabezudo' s sent ence i s

pr ocedur al l y unr easonabl e and r equi r es r esent enci ng means t hat hi schal l enge t o t he subst ant i ve r easonabl eness of hi s sent ence neednot be consi der ed. See Uni t ed St ates v. Rodr guez, 527 F. 3d 221,231 n. 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( r easoni ng that because cour t vacat ed andr emanded f or r esent enci ng, i t was unnecessary t o reach def endant ' sal t er nat i ve ar gument , whi ch chal l enged t he sent ence' s subst ant i ver easonabl eness) .

-23-


24/34

f ai l ed t o obj ect t o t he cour t ' s consi der at i on of t hi s i nf or mat i on

bel ow, hi s cl ai m i s subj ect t o t he demandi ng pl ai n- er r or st andar d

of r evi ew. See Uni t ed St ates v. Mangone, 105 F. 3d 29, 35 ( 1st Ci r .

1997) .

I t i s abundant l y cl ear t hat a di st r i ct cour t has br oad

di scr et i on at sent enci ng t o consi der i nf or mat i on per t ai ni ng t o t he

def endant and t he def endant ' s of f ense conduct . Uni t ed St ates v.

Zaval a- Mar t , 715 F. 3d 44, 54- 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . Thi s i ncl udes

t he abi l i t y t o consi der i nf or mat i on f r omcour t pr oceedi ngs at whi ch

t he def endant was not pr esent , such as a codef endant ' s sent enci ng

hear i ng. See Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Rodr guez, 489 F. 3d 48, 53

( 1st Ci r . 2007) . The di st r i ct cour t ' s di scr et i on i s not wi t hout

l i mi t s, however , and one such l i mi t r equi r es t he cour t t o base i t s

sent ence onl y upon i nf or mat i on wi t h "' suf f i ci ent i ndi ci a of

r el i abi l i t y t o suppor t i t s pr obabl e accur acy. ' " Uni t ed St at es v.

Gal l ar do- Or t i z, 666 F. 3d 808, 811 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Ci nt r nEchaut egui , 604 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) .

Rel at edl y, t he di st r i ct cour t must af f or d t he def endant an

oppor t uni t y t o r espond t o t he f act ual i nf or mat i on of f er ed agai nst

hi mat sent enci ng. See Ci nt r nEchaut egui , 604 F. 3d at 6; see al so

U. S. Sent enci ng Gui del i nes Manual 6A1. 3( a) ( "When any f actor

i mpor t ant t o t he sent enci ng det er mi nat i on i s r easonabl y i n di sput e,

t he par t i es shal l be gi ven an adequat e oppor t uni t y to pr esent

i nf or mat i on t o t he cour t r egar di ng t hat f act or . ") ; Fed. R. Cr i m. P.

-24-


25/34

32( i ) ( 1) ( "At sent enci ng, t he cour t : . . . must al l ow t he par t i es'

at t orneys t o comment on . . . mat t er s r el at i ng t o an appr opr i at e

sent ence. ") .

Of cour se, a def endant ' s r i ght t o respond t o t he

i nf or mat i on of f er ed agai nst hi m at sent enci ng means ver y l i t t l e

wi t hout a r i ght t o not i ce of t hat i nf or mat i on. See Uni t ed St at es

v. Ber zon, 941 F. 2d 8, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( "' Th[ e] r i ght t o be

hear d has l i t t l e r eal i t y or wor t h unl ess one i s i nf or med. ' "

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Bur ns v. Uni t ed St at es, 501 U. S.

129, 136 ( 1991) ) ) ; see al so I r i zar r y v. Uni t ed St at es, 553 U. S.

708, 715 ( 2008) ( " [ J ] udges i n al l cases shoul d make sur e t hat t he

i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded t o the par t i es i n advance of t he hear i ng, and

i n t he hear i ng i t sel f , has gi ven t hem an adequat e oppor t uni t y t o

conf r ont and debat e t he r el evant i ssues. " ) . Thi s cour t has

t her ef or e hel d t hat " ' a def endant may not be pl aced i n a posi t i on

wher e, because of hi s i gnorance of t he i nf ormat i on bei ng used

agai nst hi m, he i s ef f ect i vel y deni ed an oppor t uni t y t o comment on

or ot her wi se chal l enge mater i al i nf or mat i on consi der ed by t he

di st r i ct cour t . ' " Ri ver a- Rodr guez, 489 F. 3d at 54 ( quot i ng

Berzon, 941 F. 2d at 21) . Accor di ngl y, we have f ound r emand

necessary wher e a sent enci ng cour t r el i ed on new and si gni f i cant

i nf or mat i on gl eaned f r om a codef endant ' s sent enci ng hear i ng when

t hat i nf ormat i on was not i n t he record and t he def endant was not

pr esent dur i ng hi s codef endant ' s sent enci ng. Ber zon, 941 F. 2d at

-25-


26/34

17 ( r ej ect i ng gover nment ' s cl ai m of const r uct i ve not i ce wher e

def ense counsel knew of codef endant ' s sent enci ng hel d t hr ee mont hs

pr i or but di d not at t end or r equest a t r anscr i pt because co-

def endant ' s sent enci ng hear i ng "was not par t of a j oi nt pr oceedi ng

i n whi ch [ t he def endant ] or hi s counsel t ook par t " ) ; see al so

Zaval a- Mar t , 715 F. 3d at 55 ( r emandi ng f or r esent enci ng wher e

"[ a] ppel l ant was al er t ed t o the ex par t e meet i ng f or t he f i r st t i me

dur i ng t he cour t ' s sent enci ng pr onouncement , and he t hus had

i nsuf f i ci ent not i ce and no oppor t uni t y t o devel op a response t o any

adver se i nf ormat i on communi cat ed t here") . On t he ot her hand, we

have af f i r med wher e " t her e i s no i ndi cat i on f r om t he r ecor d t hat

t he sent enci ng j udge mat er i al l y r el i ed on any undi scl osed

t est i mony. " Ri ver a- Rodr guez, 489 F. 3d at 55. Thus, we scr ut i ni ze

t he r ecord cl osel y t o det er mi ne whet her t he cour t consi der ed new

i nf or mat i on at sent enci ng and i f so, whet her i t mat er i al l y r el i ed

on t hat i nf or mat i on i n cr af t i ng Mi l l n' s sent ence.

I n t hi s case, as i n Ber zon, t he r ecor d does r ef l ect t he

cour t ' s consi der at i on of new, si gni f i cant i nf or mat i on at

sent enci ng. Af t er Mi l l n' s al l ocut i on, t he sent enci ng j udge asked

t he gover nment i f i t had anyt hi ng t o say. The gover nment r epl i ed

by st at i ng i t want ed t o add t hat "t he vi ct i m, t he cashi er . . . had

i n f act pr evi ousl y wor ked i n anot her r est aur ant wher e a r obber

ki l l ed a cashi er , so she was ver y [ a] f f ect ed by t hi s r obber y. "

Lat er i n t he hear i ng, when def ense counsel i nf ormed t he cour t t hat

-26-


27/34

she had " t hr ee per sons who ar e wi l l i ng t o t est i f y, " t he cour t

r esponded by sayi ng i t di d not need t o hear f r om t hem because i t

was "goi ng t o go by what happened. . . . A young gi r l was f r eaked

out , compl et el y f r eaked out , dest r oyed emot i onal l y by t he f act t hat

t hey poi nt ed a gun at her t o t ake 114 dol l ar s. " The sent enci ng

j udge t hen t heor i zed t hat Mi l l n l i kel y di d not ask t he cashi er

pol i t el y f or t he money when he showed her t he gun, and he announced

t hat he was i mposi ng a var i ant sent ence of 60 mont hs on t he r obbery

count and 120 mont hs on t he gun count .

The gover nment has not di r ect ed us t o any i nf or mat i on i n

t he r ecor d descr i bi ng ei t her t he cashi er ' s per sonal hi st or y wi t h

si mi l ar cr i mes or t he way t hat t hi s par t i cul ar r obber y af f ect ed

her . Our own r evi ew of t he r ecor d r eveal s t hat no such i nf or mat i on

i s cont ai ned i n Mi l l n' s i ndi ct ment , pl ea agr eement , or PSR. I t

t her ef or e appear s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on t hat t he

cashi er was "dest r oyed emot i onal l y" by t he r obbery was based

pr i mar i l y upon vi ct i m i mpact i nf or mat i on pr of f er ed by t he

gover nment f or t he f i r st t i me at Mi l l n' s sent enci ng hear i ng. The

consi der at i on of such new i nf or mat i on i s par t i cul ar l y concer ni ng

her e gi ven t he cour t ' s subsequent announcement t hat i t woul d

sent ence Mi l l n t o 60 mont hs on t he robber y count - - a per i od of

i ncar cer at i on mor e than t wi ce as l ong t he gover nment ' s r ecommended

sent ence. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Cur r an, 926 F. 2d 59, 60- 64 ( 1st

Ci r . 1991) ( r ever si ng f or r esent enci ng wher e t he sent enci ng j udge

-27-


28/34

r ef er enced vi ct i m i mpact l et t er s not ment i oned i n t he PSR or

di scl osed t o def endant pr i or t o sent enci ng and t he cour t i mposed a

heavi er sent ence t han was r ecommended by t he government ) . But t hi s

di d not end t he mat t er .

Af t er announci ng Mi l l n' s sent ence and i nf or mi ng hi m of

hi s r i ght t o appeal , t he di st r i ct cour t excused Mi l l n f r om t he

cour t r oomand pr oceeded t o conduct Cabezudo' s sent enci ng hear i ng.

Dur i ng that hear i ng, t he cour t comment ed t hat " t he sent ence t hat I

i mposed on [ Mi l l n] i s per haps t oo hi gh, and we' r e goi ng t o change

t hem bot h. " The cour t t hen t ook t he unusual st ep of r econveni ng

Mi l l n' s sent enci ng hear i ng, announci ng t hat " [ o] n t he basi s of

what we were abl e t o get t o know, on t he basi s of t he sent ence of

t he codef endant , and on t he basi s of what we have di scussed, I

t hi nk per haps I shoul d l ower t he sent ence i mposed on your cl i ent . "

Thus, bot h t he chr onol ogy and t he cour t ' s own wor ds st r ongl y

suggest t hat t he di st r i ct cour t el ect ed t o adj ust Mi l l n' s sent ence

on t he basi s of f act s l ear ned at Cabezudo' s sent enci ng hear i ng, f or

whi ch Mi l l n was not pr esent . 7

7 A l i t t l e mor e t han hal f way t hr ough Cabezudo' s sent enci nghear i ng, t he sent enci ng t r anscr i pt shows t hat t he cour t asked t heMar shal s t o get Mi l l n f r om t he cel l bl ock and r et ur n hi m t o t hecour t r oom so t hat he mi ght hear Cabezudo' s al l ocut i on. Mi ssi ng

f r om t he t r anscri pt , however , i s any i ndi cat i on of when Mi l l nact ual l y r et ur ned. Accor di ng t o Mi l l n' s counsel , who al sor epr esent ed hi mbel ow, Mi l l n di d not r et ur n t o t he cour t r oomunt i l"al most at t he end of t he hear i ng, " l ong af t er t he cour t haddi scussed t he t ext - message exchange bet ween t he codef endants andot her r el evant i nf or mat i on. The gover nment di d not di sput e t hi sasser t i on.

-28-


29/34

Accor di ngl y, we must determi ne whether t he i nf ormat i on

present ed at Cabezudo' s sent enci ng was al r eady made known t o Mi l l n

ei t her i n hi s PSR or el sewher e i n t he r ecor d, or whet her t he

i nf or mat i on was new. See Ber zon, 941 F. 2d at 20 ( "The di f f i cul t y

her e . . . i s t hat t he t est i mony and ar gument at [ t he co-

def endant ' s] sent enci ng i ncl uded i nf or mat i on not i n t he PS[ R] nor

ot her wi se i n t he r ecor d i n [ t he def endant ' s] case. " ) . What t he

cour t "got t o know" and "di scussed" dur i ng Cabezudo' s sent enci ng

hear i ng spans 39 pages. Among ot her t hi ngs, t he cour t hear d t hat

Cabezudo suggest ed t he r obber y as a means of r epayment because he

bel i eved Mi l l n r out i nel y commi t t ed r obber i es, and t hat Mi l l n

agr eed t o par t i ci pat e onl y on t he condi t i on t hat Cabezudo hel p hi m

wi t h t he r obbery. The cour t r ead and di scussed t ext messages

suggest i ng t hat Cabezudo was i ni t i al l y r el uct ant t o par t i ci pat e,

but t hat he agr eed t o come wi t h Mi l l n' s assur ance t hat t he Bur ger

Ki ng woul d be "a pi ece of cake. " And when def ense counsel t ol d t he

cour t t hat Cabezudo "was not t he i nt el l ect ual aut hor of t he cr i me, "

t he cour t r esponded by sayi ng "Of cour se not . [ Mi l l n] r obs mor e

t han [ Cabezudo] . " Def ense counsel cl ar i f i ed t hat Cabezudo had no

cr i mi nal hi st or y, pr ompt i ng t he sent enci ng j udge t o r eason t hat

"maybe [ Cabezudo] never r obbed . . . [ b] ut he knew [ Mi l l n]

r obbed. "

Of t hi s i nf or mat i on r ecei ved at Cabezudo' s sent enci ng

hear i ng, t he onl y f act r ef l ect ed i n Mi l l n' s PSR i s t hat he agr eed

-29-


30/34

t o par t i ci pate i n t he r obber y as a means of r epayi ng Cabezudo.

Ther e i s no di scussi on of ei t her hi s i nduci ng Cabezudo t o assi st

hi mor of t he codef endant s' r el at i ve r ol es i n pl anni ng t he of f ense

- - a subj ect t hat was di scussed at l engt h dur i ng Cabezudo' s

sent enci ng. Addi t i onal l y, not hi ng i n Mi l l n' s PSR suggest s t hat he

had exper i ence commi t t i ng si mi l ar r obber i es. I n f act , accor di ng t o

Mi l l n' s PSR, he had no known cr i mi nal hi st or y. Mi l l n' s counsel

had pr evi ousl y emphasi zed pr eci sel y t hi s poi nt i n an ex par t e

sent enci ng memor andum, asser t i ng t hat Mi l l n " i s a f i r st t i me

of f ender wi t hout any pr i or cr i mi nal behavi or what soever . " The

gover nment never di sput ed t hi s f act , and t he onl y i nf or mat i on t he

sent enci ng cour t hear d t o the cont r ar y came f r om Cabezudo' s

sent enci ng hear i ng.

For a second t i me, t hen, we see t he sent enci ng cour t

seemi ngl y adj ust i ng Mi l l n' s sent ence on t he basi s on f act s out si de

t he r ecord, and we t ur n now t o t he quest i on of whet her t hi s er r or

mer i t s rever sal . Undoubt edl y, t he cour t ' s er r or was cl ear at t he

t i me of sent enci ng. See Ri ver a- Rodr guez, 489 F. 3d at 53; Cur r an,

926 F. 2d at 63 ( hol di ng t hat hencef or t h, wher e a sent enci ng cour t

r el i es on ext r a- r ecor d f act ual i nf or mat i on at sent enci ng, i t

"shoul d di scl ose t o t he def endant as much as was r el i ed upon, i n a

t i mel y manner , so as t o af f or d t he def endant a f ai r oppor t uni t y to

exami ne and chal l enge i t . " ) . We t her ef or e t ur n t o t he quest i on of

whet her Mi l l n' s subst ant i al r i ght s wer e af f ect ed by t he cour t ' s

-30-


31/34

consi der at i on of new, mat er i al i nf or mat i on of whi ch he had no

not i ce pr i or t o hi s sent enci ng. Essent i al l y, Mi l l n must show t hat

t he er r or "af f ect ed t he out come of t he di st r i ct cour t pr oceedi ngs. "

Ol ano, 507 U. S. at 734.

The gover nment appar ent l y concedes t hat t he i nf or mat i on

di scussed at Cabezudo' s hear i ng af f ect ed Mi l l n' s sent ence, not i ng

t hat " t hose argument s and i nf ormat i on [ di scussed at Cabezudo' s

hear i ng] . . . per suaded t he cour t t o change i t s mi nd as t o the

ci r cumst ances of t he of f ense. " Never t hel ess, t he gover nment argues

t hat Mi l l n' s not i ce cl ai m cannot sur vi ve pl ai n er r or r evi ew

because "t he i nf ormat i on pr esent ed at Cabezudo' s sent enci ng hear i ng

onl y benef i t t ed Mi l l n, who r ecei ved a si gni f i cant sent enci ng

r educt i on as a r esul t . " We di sagr ee.

The f act t hat t he di st r i ct cour t r el i ed on ext r a- r ecor d

i nf or mat i on when reduci ng Mi l l n' s sent ence f r om one above-

Gui del i nes sent ence t o anot her does not negat e t he l i kel i hood t hat

had Mi l l n been af f or ded an oppor t uni t y t o r espond t o t hat

i nf or mat i on, hi s sent ence may have been l ower st i l l . I ndeed, t he

gover nment ' s r ecommended sent ence was 108 mont hs, not t he 120

i mposed by t he cour t . Under t hese ci r cumst ances, we cannot i gnore

t he f act t hat bot h t he vi ct i m i mpact evi dence and t he i nf or mat i on

di scussed at Cabezudo' s sent enci ng const i t ut ed new, mater i al

i nf or mat i on. Par t i cul ar l y gi ven t he cour t ' s demonst r at ed i nt er est

i n assessi ng t he ef f ect of cr i me on t he communi t y and t he r el at i ve

-31-


32/34

r ol es of t he codef endant s i n t hi s case, 8 Mi l l n shoul d have had

t he oppor t uni t y t o r espond t o t he ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on

r egar di ng hi s compar at i ve cul pabi l i t y, hi s cri mi nal hi st or y, and

t he i mpact of hi s of f ense on t he vi ct i m bef or e t he cour t r el i ed on

i t at hi s sent enci ng.

As Mi l l n poi nt s out , had he been pr esent at Cabezudo' s

sent enci ng hear i ng and gi ven a second oppor t uni t y t o addr ess t he

cour t , he coul d have chal l enged t he "unr el i abl e" i nf or mat i on

pr esent ed at Cabezudo' s hear i ng r egar di ng t he r el at i ve

r esponsi bi l i t i es of t he t wo codef endant s, expl ai ned t he meani ng of

t he t ext messages r ead by the cour t , and di sput ed t he cour t ' s

unf avor abl e concl usi on r egar di ng hi s cr i mi nal hi st or y. Consi der i ng

t hat even t he 120- mont h sent ence ul t i matel y i mposed by t he di st r i ct

cour t exceeded t he government ' s r ecommended sentence by a f ul l

year , we cannot i gnor e t he l i kel i hood t hat Mi l l an' s var i ant

sent ence was af f ect ed by t he cour t ' s unant i ci pat ed r el i ance on

ext r a- r ecor d, mat er i al i nf or mat i on at hi s sent enci ng. See Cur r an,

926 F. 2d at 63.

Based on t he r ecor d bef or e us, we f i nd t hat i t i s

r easonabl y l i kel y t hat t he cour t ' s er r oneous consi der at i on of new,

si gni f i cant i nf or mat i on - - t o whi ch Mi l l n had no meani ngf ul

8 I ndeed, at Cabezudo' s sent enci ng hear i ng, t he cour t descr i bedt he si gni f i cance of Cabezudo' s al l ocut i on by obser vi ng t hat "he hast o be br ave enough to put hi s own case i n hi s own per spect i ve, sowe can act ual l y f i gur e out what we' r e goi ng t o do wi t h hi m. Par tof i t i s r ecogni zi ng what you di d and what t he ot her guy di d. "

-32-


33/34

oppor t uni t y t o r espond - - af f ect ed t he cour t ' s det er mi nat i on of hi s

sent ence. Recogni zi ng f ur t her t hat " [ p] r i or not i ce i s one of t he

most zeal ousl y guar ded r i ght s of cr i mi nal def endant s. . . . [ such]

t hat di sr egar d f or i t cannot hel p but have a deni gr at i ng ef f ect on

t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, and publ i c reput at i on of j udi ci al

pr oceedi ngs, " Mangone, 105 F. 3d at 36, we f i nd t hat Mi l l n' s

sent ence shoul d be vacat ed, and we r emand f or r esent enci ng. 9

As a f i nal mat t er , we emphasi ze t hat not hi ng i n t hi s

opi ni on shoul d be r ead t o suggest t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i s not

f r ee t o consi der at r esent enci ng ei t her vi ct i m i mpact i nf or mat i on

or i nf or mat i on pr esent ed at Cabezudo' s sent enci ng hear i ng. Rat her ,

we mer el y hol d t hat t he cour t must pr ovi de not i ce, and t he

oppor t uni t y t o r espond, bef or e r el yi ng on such ext r a- r ecor d

i nf or mat i on.

III. Conclusion

We ar e not unsympat het i c t o t he si gni f i cant t i me

pr essures f el t by t he di st r i ct cour t s as t hey manage heavy docket s

wi t h l i mi t ed r esour ces. Never t hel ess, we cannot over l ook t he

ser i ous pr ocedur al er r or s at i ssue i n t hi s case. The di st r i ct

cour t pl ai nl y er r ed by sent enci ng Cabezudo wi t hout cal cul at i ng t he

appl i cabl e GSR and by sent enci ng Mi l l n wi t hout pr ovi di ng hi mwi t h

9 Because we f i nd t hat r esent enci ng i s r equi r ed, Mi l l n' saddi t i onal cl ai ms of pr ocedur al er r or at sent enci ng ar e moot , andhi s chal l enge t o t he subst ant i ve reasonabl eness of hi s sent enceneed not be addr essed. See Rodr guez, 527 F. 3d at 231 n. 5.

-33-


34/34

not i ce and an oppor t uni t y t o r ebut t he f act s t hat f or med t he basi s

of hi s sent ence. We t her ef or e hol d t hat t he def endant s' sent ences

are vacated and r emanded f or r esent enci ng consi st ent wi t h t hi s

opi ni on.

Of cour se, t he di st r i ct cour t r emai ns f r ee on r emand t o

exer ci se i t s di scr et i on t o sent ence t he def endant s wi t hi n or

out si de of t he appl i cabl e Gui del i nes r anges, and we t ake no vi ew at

t hi s t i me as t o t he l engt h of t he sent ences t o be i mposed. So l ong

as t he sent enci ng cour t af f or ds pr oper not i ce and oppor t uni t y t o be

hear d, begi ns by cal cul at i ng t he appl i cabl e Gui del i nes sent ences,

and adequat el y expl ai ns i t s sent ences af t er consi der at i on of t he

r el evant sent enci ng f actor s, i t i s f r ee t o exer ci se i t s

consi der abl e di scr et i on i n cr af t i ng appr opr i at e sent ences f or t he

Appel l ant s.

REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

34

united states v. millan-isaac, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents