FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
PUERTO RICO [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District
R. Valldejuli on brief for appellant.
Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney,
Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States
Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, and Mainon A. Schwartz,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Torruella, Selya and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
Kelvin Márquez-García mounts a multifaceted
challenge, on both procedural and substantive grounds, to a
24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of a term
of supervised release. After careful consideration, we
summarily affirm. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
briefly rehearse the relevant facts. In December of 2012, the
appellant pleaded guilty to the unlawful possession of a
machine gun. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). The
district court sentenced him to a 21-month term of
immurement, to be followed by three years of supervised
release. The appellant served his prison sentence and
embarked upon his supervised release term in August of 2014.
Two days shy of a year later, he was found to be in
possession of yet another gun.
course, the appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of being a
felon in possession of a firearm. See id. §
922(g)(1). For this offense, the district court imposed a
fresh 48-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by three
more years of supervised release. No disposition was made at
that time with respect to the appellant's apparent
violation of his original supervised release term.
September of 2015, the probation officer moved to revoke the
original supervised release term based on the conduct
underlying the appellant's felon-in-possession charge.
The district court convened a revocation hearing, at which
the appellant conceded the violation. The court revoked the
original period of supervision; noted that the
appellant's felon-in-possession conviction was a Grade B
violation, see USSG §7B1.1(a)(2); and
calculated the advisory guideline sentencing range (GSR) at
four to ten months, see id. §7B1.4(a). Because
the underlying offense (unlawful possession of a machine gun)
was a Class C felony, see 18 U.S.C. §§
924(a)(2), 3559(a), the maximum permitted term of
imprisonment was 24 months, see id. §
3583(e)(3). The appellant urged the court to sentence him at
the bottom of the GSR. The government asked for a sentence at
the top of the GSR. After considering the sentencing factors
limned in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the court sentenced the
appellant to a 24-month term of immurement, to run
consecutively to his 48-month sentence on the
felon-in-possession charge. This timely appeal followed.
appellant challenges his revocation sentence on both
procedural and substantive grounds. We discuss his claims of
error one by one.
begin, the appellant asserts that the district court failed
to give due consideration to the section 3583(e) factors. As
a general matter, appellate courts review preserved claims of
sentencing error for abuse of discretion. See Gall v.
UnitedStates, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). But when
a party has failed to raise a particular claim of error
before the sentencing court, appellate review is normally
limited to plain error. See United States v.
Ruiz-Huertas, 792 F.3d 223, 226 (1st Cir.), cert.
denied, 136 S.Ct. 258 (2015). To vault the formidable
hurdle imposed by plain error review, an appellant must show
"(1) that an error occurred (2) which was clear or
obvious and which not only (3) affected the [appellant's]
substantial rights, but also (4) seriously impaired the
fairness, integrity, or public ...