-
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.
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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 co- def 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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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 co- def 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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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 co- def 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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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 co- def 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 co- def endant ' s sent enci ng. Ber zon, 941 F. 2d at
-25-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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 co- def 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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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 co- def 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 co- def 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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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 co- def 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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
32/34
r ol es of t he co- def 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 co- def 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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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-
-
7/26/2019 United States v. Millan-Isaac, 1st Cir. (2014)
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