United States v. Jurado-Nazario, No. 18-1679 (1st Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the First Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from First Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for two counts of production of child pornography and two counts of transportation of a minor with the intent to engage in criminal activity, holding that the sentence was substantively reasonable.
Defendant pleaded guilty, and his plea agreement tentatively calculated a prison term of 210 to 262 months. The district court made its own calculations, resulting in a proposed sentence of between 324 and 405 months. The court then granted Defendant a downward variance and sentenced him to a prison term of 300 months. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion by impermissibly balancing the sentencing pros and cons. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 18-1679 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. EDWIN JURADO-NAZARIO, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge] Before Lynch and Boudin,* Circuit Judges. Johnny Rivera-González on brief for appellant. W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, Mariana E. BauzáAlmonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, on brief for appellee. October 30, 2020 While this case was submitted to a panel that included Judge Torruella, he did not participate in the issuance of the panel's opinion. The remaining two panelists therefore issued the opinion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). * BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. Edwin Jurado-Nazario pled guilty to two counts of Production of Child Pornography, see 18 U.S.C. § 2551(a) and (e), and two counts of Transportation of a Minor with the Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity, see 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). For these offenses, his plea agreement tentatively calculated a prison term of 210 to 262 months. The starting point for a district court's sentencing determination "is recommendations." the guideline range, not the parties' United States v. Cortés-Medina, 819 F.3d 566, 573 (1st Cir. 2016). Here, the district court made its own calculations, resulting in a proposed sentence between 324 and 405 months. The court then granted Jurado-Nazario a downward variance, citing his service in the United States Army, and sentenced him to a prison term of 300 months. Jurado-Nazario appealed, arguing that his sentence was substantively unreasonable and that the government violated his plea agreement by defending the sentence. Before this court, Jurado-Nazario conceded that the district court correctly calculated the applicable guidelines range and that his sentence was procedurally sound, but he argued that the district court abused its discretion, thus creating a sentence that was substantively unreasonable, by impermissibly balancing the sentencing "pros and cons." that the sentence, twenty-four months - 2 - The government answered below the applicable guidelines range, was substantively reasonable. Jurado-Nazario responded that the government violated his plea agreement, in which they agreed not to recommend a sentence higher than 235 months, by defending the reasonableness of his 300-month sentence. Breach of Plea Agreement. Although "arguments raised for the first time in an appellate reply brief [are] ordinarily deemed waived," United States v. Casey, 825 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2016), an appellant's reply to an argument raised for the first time in the opposing appellee's brief has not been waived, for the appellant brought the issue to the court's attention "at the earliest point when it was logical to do so." Holmes v. Spencer, 685 F.3d 51, 66 (1st Cir. 2012); see also Rivera-Carrasquillo v. Centro Ecuestre Madrigal, Inc., 812 F.3d 213, 228 n.29 (1st Cir. 2016); Alfano v. United States, 592 F. Supp. 2d 149, 153 (D. Me. 2008) (describing a case in which this court reviewed on the merits an argument raised for the first time in the defendant's reply brief because the argument was in response to a contention raised for the first time in the government's brief). Because Jurado-Nazario raised the argument that the government violated the terms of his plea agreement "at the earliest point when it was logical to do so," this court will not "fault him for not having raised it sooner." Holmes, 685 F.3d at 66; see also Sparkle Hill, Inc. v. Interstate Mat Corp., 788 F.3d 25, 29-30 (1st Cir. 2015). "Whether the government has breached - 3 - its plea agreement . . . presents a question of law, and our review is de novo." United States v. Cruz-Vázquez, 841 F.3d 546, 548 (1st Cir. 2016) (citing United States v. Rivera-Rodríguez, 489 F.3d 48, 57 (1st Cir. 2007)). A plea agreement is interpreted according to normal contract principles. See United States v. Marín-Echeverri, 846 F.3d 473, 477-78 (1st Cir. 2017). This court has been "scrupulous in holding defendants to the terms of the plea agreements that they enter knowingly and voluntarily." United States v. Ortiz- Santiago, 211 F.3d 146, 151 (1st Cir. 2000). But "[w]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled." Cruz-Vázquez, 841 F.3d at 548 (quoting Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971)). Jurado-Nazario's plea agreement calculated a total offense level of 37, for which the guidelines recommend a prison term of 210 to 262 months. In Jurado-Nazario's plea agreement, the government allowed "the defendant to argue for a variant sentence of incarceration as low as 15 years (180 months)" and "reserve[d] the right to argue for a sentence of incarceration up to 235 months (19.5 years)." promised that "no further App. vol. I, 22. adjustments - 4 - or Both sides then departures to the defendant's total offense level shall be sought by the parties." App. vol. I, 23. The government kept its promise. At the sentencing hearing, the government resisted Jurado-Nazario's request for a 180-month prison term, emphasizing that Jurado-Nazario's crimes involved four different victims and equating the good qualities that Jurado-Nazario had put forward as potential mitigating factors to those that a pedophile needs to gain a victim's trust. On that basis, the Government suggested a prison term of 235 months, exactly the term promised in Jurado-Nazario's plea. The government did not breach the plea agreement by arguing before reasonable. this court that Jurado-Nazario's sentence was Defending the district court's discretionary judgment to impose a 300-month sentence does not violate the government's promise to refrain from seeking "adjustments or departures to the defendant's total offense level" or from recommending a sentence of over 235 months. Those promises applied to the government's recommendation at sentencing, not to a future appeal. Furthermore, [a]s an appellee, the government is tasked, in effect, with defending the district court's judgment when a criminal defendant appeals. In our view, the government normally should be free, on appeal, to support a ruling of the district court even though a plea agreement precluded it below from arguing the position that underpins the ruling. - 5 - United States v. Carbajal-Váldez, 874 F.3d 778, 786-87 (1st Cir. 2017) (footnote omitted). Substantive Reasonableness. Jurado-Nazario was sentenced to a 300-month sentence, rather than a 180-month sentence as requested in his sentencing memorandum. An objection to his sentence on the ground of substantive reasonableness is therefore preserved. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766 (2020). Jurado-Nazario contends that the district court abused its sentencing discretion factors in when 18 it impermissibly U.S.C. § substantively unreasonable sentence. 3553(a), balanced resulting the in a We review his challenge for abuse of discretion, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court adopted the pre-sentence report's offense level of 41 and a criminal history category of I, which indicated a sentencing range of 324 to 405 months in prison. Then, noting Jurado-Nazario's military sentenced him to 300 months. service, the district court Jurado-Nazario does not dispute that the court adopted the correct guidelines range. Instead, he puts forward mitigating factors that, he alleges, support an even greater downward variance than the one the court awarded. Jurado-Nazario claims that the court should have fashioned a more lenient sentence because (1) he is a veteran who served abroad in the US Army, (2) his family was abusive and - 6 - neglectful to him as a child, (3) during his military service, he suffered a traumatic disorder that brain triggered injury his and resulting post-traumatic (4) the sentencing guidelines for child pornography are unduly harsh. But the district court did not err. crimes, and stress First, the district court took his military service into account and granted a more lenient sentence on that basis. Second, Jurado-Nazario admits that his background was "vastly discussed" in court; "[t]hat the sentencing court chose not to attach to certain of the mitigating factors the significance that the appellant thinks they deserved does not make the sentence unreasonable." 588, 593 (1st Cir. 2011). United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d Third, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and then made a factual finding that there was "no medical evidence" of a traumatic brain injury and no evidence that proved a causal connection between PTSD and Jurado-Nazario's criminal behavior. In the context of sentencing, we review factual findings for clear error, see United States v. Carpenter, 781 F.3d 599, 622 (1st Cir. 2015), and here, the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous. Lastly, pornography as some do remarkably regard harsh the guidelines considering convictions can yield shorter sentences. for that child murder See, e.g., Clogston, 662 F.3d at 593 (calling the guidelines for child pornography cases "very stern"). Ultimately, however, the sentencing guidelines - 7 - reflect social attitudes and can be changed by the political branches. Here, the district court chose a 300-month sentence, taking into account both Jurado-Nazario's specific circumstances and the fact that child pornography can expose victims to longterm damage and must be deterred. Affirmed. - 8 -
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.
