Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 14-1224
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
SERGIO SANTA-OTERO,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. José Antonio Fusté, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Barron, Circuit Judges.
Alejandra Bird López on brief for appellant.
Tiffany V. Monrose, Assistant United States Attorney, Nelson
Pérez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate
Division, and Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United Sates Attorney,
on brief for appellee.
July 13, 2015
BARRON, Circuit Judge. The defendant in this federal
gun crime case challenges his sentence on a number of grounds. We
vacate and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
I.
On August 12, 2013, Puerto Rico law enforcement officers
performed a traffic stop after noticing a driver smoking what
appeared to be marijuana. The officers asked the driver -- later
identified as Sergio Santa-Otero, the defendant-appellant here --
whether, in addition to the marijuana, there was anything else
illegal in the car. Santa informed the officers that he had a gun
and some ammunition inside a black fanny pack. The officers seized
a loaded Glock pistol from the fanny pack. At some point, Santa
told the officers not to touch the gun's trigger because the gun
had a "chip" and thus could fire as an automatic weapon. The
officers also recovered from the car four loaded Glock pistol
magazines, two additional loaded high-capacity magazines, and more
than one hundred .40-caliber rounds of ammunition.
Federal authorities charged Santa with unlawfully
possessing a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o)(1)
and 924(a)(2), and with unlawfully possessing a firearm as a
convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(2). Santa pled guilty to both counts.
The plea agreement recommended a sentence between 33 and
41 months in prison, which was the range recommended by the
- 2 -
sentencing guidelines assuming that Santa's criminal history
category was II. The probation office subsequently determined,
however, that Santa's criminal history category was III, not II,
and thus that the proper guidelines range for Santa was 37 to 46
months.
The District Court did not sentence Santa within even
that higher range. The District Court instead imposed a sentence
of 65 months in prison. At the sentencing hearing, the District
Court explained that, due to the seriousness of the "arsenal" Santa
possessed at the time of arrest and Santa's "prior convictions at
the state level," a "nefarious" purpose motivated Santa's unlawful
possession of the automatic weapon and ammunition.
One of Santa's two prior convictions was for domestic
violence. Santa apparently had "[p]unched the woman in the face
and body, [and] broke[n] her nose." The other conviction was for
simple possession of controlled substances. The District Court
repeatedly mischaracterized that conviction, however, as one for
possession with intent to distribute. Santa now appeals his
sentence chiefly on the basis of that error.1
1 Because the District Court did not sentence Santa within
the terms of the plea agreement, the government rightly
acknowledges that the agreement's waiver-of-appeal clause does not
bar the present appeal.
- 3 -
II.
Santa argues that the District Court clearly erred in
finding that Santa had been convicted of possession with intent to
distribute controlled substances, when in fact he was convicted of
simple possession. Santa is right, and even the government now
concedes the point. The dispute, then, is over the consequences
of the District Court's error.
The government contends the error was harmless. To
decide whether it was, we look to see if the error "affect[ed] the
district court's selection of the sentence imposed." United States
v. Tavares, 705 F.3d 4, 26-27 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Williams v.
United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992)). "If the party defending
the sentence persuades the court of appeals that the district court
would have imposed the same sentence absent the erroneous factor,
then a remand is not required . . . ." Williams, 503 U.S. at 203.
In contending the error did not affect the sentence, the
government argues that the error did not alter Santa's criminal
history category under the sentencing guidelines. Under the
guidelines, the criminal history category helps to determine the
recommended sentencing range. But the District Court did not
impose a sentence within the guidelines range. The District Court
instead imposed a sentence that varied considerably upwards from
that guidelines range. The government's argument for why the error
was harmless is therefore insufficient.
- 4 -
Instead, the key question is whether the error affected
the extent of the variance. As to that point, the District Court,
in explaining its rationale for the upward variance, expressly
referenced the supposed drug trafficking offense three times
during the sentencing hearing. And the District Court, in
justifying the sentence, both highlighted Santa's "prior
convictions at the state level" and concluded that "any reasonable
person can infer [that] a person with [Santa's] history and his
criminal history, and that amount of ammunition and kind of gun
and arsenal, . . . had no good purposes or intents by having . . .
that firearm and those high capacity magazines." (Emphasis added.)
But the District Court may have viewed Santa's criminal history -
- and the plausibility of his alleged innocent intention for
possessing the firearm, ammunition, and magazines -- differently
had it properly understood that the defendant's prior drug
conviction was for mere possession and not possession with intent
to distribute. Then again, maybe not. Ultimately, however, while
Santa's sentence "might well have been the same regardless of" the
error, given the emphasis the court placed on it "we are not
certain enough to find harmless error." United States v. McGhee,
651 F.3d 153, 158 (1st Cir. 2011). We thus cannot say the
government has met its burden of showing that the District Court's
mistaken understanding of the defendant's prior drug conviction
- 5 -
had no effect on the sentence. See Tavares, 705 F.3d at 26-27.
We therefore vacate Santa's prison sentence.2
III.
That leaves one final issue. The District Court orally
imposed a three-year term of supervised release, but the final
written judgment purported to impose a five-year supervised
release term. Santa asks that we vacate the supervised release
portion of the sentence and remand so that the District Court may
conform the supervised release term to the term set forth in the
District Court's oral sentence. Because "an oral sentence prevails
over a written judgment if there is a material conflict between
the two," United States v. Riccio, 567 F.3d 39, 40 (1st Cir. 2009),
the government rightly concedes that the District Court erred in
imposing the five-year supervised release term set forth in the
written judgment. We therefore vacate Santa's supervised release
term so that it may be corrected on remand.
IV.
For the reasons provided above, we vacate Santa's prison
sentence and supervised release term and remand for resentencing.
2 Because we reach that conclusion, we need not address
Santa's separate contention that insufficient evidence supported
the District Court's conclusion that Santa necessarily had a
"nefarious" purpose in possessing the weapon and ammunition.
- 6 -