United States v. Del Valle-Rodríguez
| Decision Date | 04 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–1858.,13–1858. |
| Citation | 761 F.3d 171 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alberto Omar DEL VALLE–RODRÍGUEZ, Defendant, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Arza Feldman and Feldman and Feldman, on brief, for appellant.
Rosa Emilia Rodríguez–Vélez, United States Attorney, Nelson Pérez–Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, and John A. Mathews II, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief, for appellee.
Before HOWARD, SELYA and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges.
In Tapia v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011), the Supreme Court made pellucid that “a court may not impose or lengthen a prison sentence to enable an offender to complete a treatment program or otherwise to promote rehabilitation.” Id. at 2393. Nevertheless, a sentencing “court commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or the benefits of specific treatment or training programs.” Id. at 2392. This case requires us, for the first time, to plot the fine line that separates impermissible uses of rehabilitation from permissible uses. Concluding that the sentence imposed was free from error in this or any other respect, we affirm.
Because this sentencing appeal trails after a guilty plea, we glean the facts from the plea agreement, the change-of-plea colloquy, the unchallenged portions of the presentence investigation report (PSI Report), and the transcript of the disposition hearing. See United States v. Nguyen, 618 F.3d 72, 73 (1st Cir.2010); United States v. Dietz, 950 F.2d 50, 51 (1st Cir.1991).
Our account starts with the events of June 5, 2012. On that date, defendant-appellant Alberto Omar Del Valle–Rodríguez commandeered an automobile at gunpoint. Police officers subsequently located the stolen car and apprehended the appellant in Carolina, Puerto Rico.
A federal grand jury sitting in the District of Puerto Rico returned an indictment charging the appellant with taking a motor vehicle by force, violence, and intimidation with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm (count 1).1See18 U.S.C. § 2119(1). After initially maintaining his innocence, the appellant agreed to plead guilty to this count. A magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the changed plea and ordered the preparation of a PSI Report.
At the disposition hearing, the district court (having accepted the guilty plea) constructed the appellant's guideline sentencing range (GSR). To a base offense level of 20, seeUSSG § 2B3.1(a), the court essayed various adjustments, up and down, netting out a total of three additional levels. See id. §§ 2B3.1(b)(2)(D), 2B3.1(b)(5), 3E1.1(b). These computations, unchallenged on appeal, yielded a total offense level of 23. The court paired this total offense level with an unchallenged criminal history category of V (which resulted from the appellant's significant record of prior convictions and the fact that he had committed the 2012 carjacking while on probation).
The court proceeded to fix the GSR at 84 to 105 months and sentenced the appellant to an upwardly variant term of immurement (120 months). This timely appeal ensued.
The appellant does not gainsay the sentencing court's guideline calculations. He does, however, attack what he perceives as the court's reliance on his rehabilitative needs and its imposition of an above-the-range sentence. We address these matters sequentially.
We preface our analysis of the appellant's first claim of error by noting that he failed to advance this claim below. Our review is, therefore, limited to plain error. See United States v. Medina–Villegas, 700 F.3d 580, 583 (1st Cir.2012). The plain error standard is familiar. To succeed on plain error review, a defendant must demonstrate “(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. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir.2001). Here, however, we discern no error, plain or otherwise.
The appellant argues that the district court erred by using his drug addiction and his related need for rehabilitation as factors warranting an increase in the length of his sentence. The factual support for this argument is at best tenuous; the appellant points only to the court's allusions at sentencing to his “chronic drug addiction” and “need for supervision.”
His argument's legal foundation, loosely based on the Supreme Court's decision in Tapia, is also shaky. It seeks to exploit a grey area: the Tapia Court did not draw a precise line separating the impermissible use of rehabilitation to increase the length of a sentence from the permissible discussion of rehabilitation programs. See Tapia, 131 S.Ct. at 2392–93. But even though this court has not had occasion to plot that line post- Tapia, a broad consensus has developed among the courts of appeals. While the courts have used a variety of locutions, the dividing line is whether a sentencing court's reference to rehabilitative needs was causally related to the length of the sentence or, conversely, was merely one of a mix of sentencing consequences and opportunities. In the absence of a causal relationship, courts have hesitated to find Tapia error. See United States v. Lifshitz, 714 F.3d 146, 150 (2d Cir.2013) (per curiam) (); United States v. Replogle, 678 F.3d 940, 943 (8th Cir.2012) (). Where, however, the record indicates that rehabilitative concerns were the driving force behind, or a dominant factor in, the length of a sentence, courts have found Tapia error. See, e.g., United States v. Garza, 706 F.3d 655, 662 (5th Cir.2013) (); United States v. Cordery, 656 F.3d 1103, 1105–06 (10th Cir.2011) ().
We join this consensus and hold that no Tapia error occurs unless rehabilitative concerns are being relied upon either in deciding whether to incarcerate or in deciding the length of the incarcerative sentence to be imposed. Thus, the mere mention of rehabilitative needs, without any indication that those needs influenced the length of the sentence imposed, is not Tapia error.2
Measured against this benchmark, the appellant's argument shrivels. First, the district court never mentioned rehabilitation.3 Second, the record contains no indication that the district court's references to the appellant's chronic drug addiction either were a proxy for rehabilitative concerns or played any causal role in determining the length of his sentence. There is simply nothing in the sentencing record that, fairly viewed, indicates that the court hinged any part of its sentencing determination on rehabilitative concerns.
We reject the appellant's far-fetched suggestion that the district court's articulation of his perceived “need for supervision” insinuates that his sentence was designed to accommodate rehabilitative treatment. That rank speculation depends on a distorted interpretation of the court's language. 4 After all, “supervision” is virtually a term of art in criminal sentencing, cf.USSG § 5D1.1(a) (), and the appellant's unsavory criminal past graphically illustrates the need for supervision. Nothing in what the district court said supports equating “supervision” with “rehabilitation” here.
To cinch the matter, the actual basis for the district court's sentencing determination is crystal clear. The court made persistent and pointed references to the appellant's extensive criminal history, serial probation violations, and elevated risk of recidivism. These factors—not drug addiction or rehabilitative concerns—plainly appear to have been the driving forces behind, and the dominant factors in, the length of the appellant's sentence. There is no hint of Tapia error.
The appellant's second claim of error implicates the reasonableness of the upward variance. We review this claim for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The hallmark of this inquiry is reasonableness. See United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588, 590 (1st Cir.2011).
With respect to sentencing determinations, reasonableness has both a procedural and a substantive dimension. See United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 92 (1st Cir.2008). The procedural dimension includes errors such as failing to consider appropriate sentencing factors, predicating a sentence on clearly erroneous facts, or neglecting to explain the rationale for a variant sentence adequately. See id. (citing Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586). The substantive dimension focuses on the duration of the sentence in light of the totality of the circumstances. See id.
The appellant casts his claim of error as procedural, arguing that the considerations on which the district court based its upward variance were already taken into account in fashioning the GSR. Relatedly, he argues that the court failed to articulate any reasons why his crime differed from the heartland of the crimes encompassed within the GSR.
We approach these arguments mindful that deference to the trial court is a lineament of appellate review of federal criminal sentences. See United States v. Flores–Machicote, 706 F.3d 16, 20 (1st Cir.2013). The advisory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States v. Oladimu
- United States v. Owens
- United States v. Schonewolf
- United States v. Vargas-Martinez
-
A Failing System: The Opioid Crisis, Recidivism, and the Desperate Need for Prison Reform.
...Schonewolf 905 F.3d at 691. (75.) See Schonewolf, 905 F.3d at 691 (explaining dominant factor test); United States v. Del Valle-Rodriguez, 761 F.3d 171, 174-75 (1st Cir. 2014) (prohibiting "driving force" of rehabilitation in determining sentence length); United States v. Lifshitz, 714 F.3d......