US v. Santana-Aviles, No. 18-2104 (1st Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 18-2104 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. RAYMOND SANTANA-AVILES, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Gustavo A. Gelpí, Jr., U.S. District Judge] Before Lynch, Selya, and Barron, Circuit Judges. David Ramos-Pagán on brief for appellant. Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, and Francisco A. Besosa-Martínez, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. December 10, 2019 PER CURIAM. We summarily affirm the revocation sentence and revocation judgment in this matter. The sentence imposed is See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c). procedurally sound. The district court did not consider any impermissible factors nor did it rely on any inaccurate information. "After all, where there is more than one plausible view of the circumstances, the sentencing court's choice among supportable alternatives cannot be" abuse of discretion. 1990). United States v. Ruiz, 905 F.2d 499, 508 (1st Cir. There was, therefore, no abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. FloresMachicote, 706 F.3d 16, 20 (1st Cir. 2013). So, too, the district court articulated a plausible sentencing rationale and achieved a defensible result. States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 96 (1st Cir. 2008). See United The sentence — though higher than the Guidelines sentence that the defendant sought — is within the wide "universe of reasonable sentencing outcomes." United States v. Vargas-García, 794 F.3d 162, 167 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588, 592 (1st Cir. 2011)). Consequently, the defendant's substantive unreasonableness is without merit. Affirmed. - 2 - claim of

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.