Not for Publication in West’s Federal Reporter
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Aida M. Delgado-Colón, U.S. District Judge]
Elizabeth Caddick, on brief for appellant.
Nelson Pérez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, Carmen M. Márquez-Marín, Assistant United States Attorney, and Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Before Lynch, Thompson, and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.
Eugenio Perez-Perez pled guilty in September 2013 to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and was sentenced, by upward variance, to 60 months imprisonment. He now challenges his sentence. Because the sentence the district court imposed was procedurally and substantively reasonable, we affirm.
On June 12, 2013, agents of the Puerto Rico Police Department responded to a 911 call from a woman who said she had been threatened with a firearm. The victim said she was at home when Perez-Perez began calling to her from the street, asking her to come out of the house so they could talk. When she refused, he pointed a firearm at her. The victim pointed out Perez-Perez's vehicle to the agents when they arrived. The agents pursued and detained Perez-Perez, and brought him to the police precinct. During the car inventory, the agents discovered a revolver inside a fanny pack under the driver's seat of the car. Perez-Perez was then placed under arrest. The investigation later revealed that Perez-Perez was on supervised release, having previously been convicted under federal law of conspiracy to distribute narcotics and carrying a weapon in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Perez-Perez had been placed in low-intensity supervision in April 2013.
On September 16, 2013, Perez-Perez pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The plea agreement provided for a recommended sentence in the middle of the applicable guideline range. At sentencing, the parties agreed to 33 months, based on a guideline range of 30 to 37 months. The district court rejected the recommendation and sentenced Perez-Perez to 60 months.
Perez-Perez argues that his 60-month sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Generally, we review the reasonableness of a criminal sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Millán-Isaac, 749 F.3d 57, 66 (1st Cir. 2014). But when the defendant raises no procedural objection at sentencing, our review is for plain error. Id. When assessing the reasonableness of a sentence, we consider whether the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. United States v. Hernández-Maldonado, 793 F.3d 223, 227 (1st Cir. 2015). His sentence meets both requirements.
A sentence is procedurally reasonable if "the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence." United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 92 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)).
Perez-Perez contends that the district court committed a procedural error by considering his "socio-economic level, " a status which, under the guidelines, is "not relevant in the determination of a sentence." See U.S.S.G. § 5H1.10. As Perez-Perez concedes, because he ...