United States of America v. Yamil Vargas-Santiago

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 18-1504
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
YAMIL VARGAS-SANTIAGO,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Stahl, and Lipez,
Circuit Judges.
Eric A. Vos, Federal Public Defender, Vivianne M. Marrero,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Supervisor, Appeals Section,
and Liza L. Rosado-Rodriguez, Research and Writing Specialist, on
brief for appellant.
Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, Mariana
E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief,
Appellate Division, and Julia M. Meconiates, Assistant United
States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
March 25, 2019

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
Per Curiam. After careful consideration, we affirm the
revocation of appellant Yamil Vargas-Santiago's supervised
release. Vargas-Santiago does not contest that he was subject to
mandatory revocation based on his failed drug tests. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(g)(4). Therefore, even if the district court erred in
finding, based on hearsay evidence, that Vargas-Santiago had
assaulted his mother -- and we make no judgment on that claim by
Vargas-Santiago -- any error was harmless. See United States v.
Fontanez, 845 F.3d 439, 445 (1st Cir. 2017); see also United States
v. Williams, 847 F.3d 251, 254 (5th Cir. 2017); United States v.
Mosley, 759 F.3d 664, 669 (7th Cir. 2014). Moreover, to the extent
that the district court may have erred in considering the hearsay
evidence in imposing an above-guideline revocation sentence,
Vargas-Santiago has only challenged the revocation judgment, and
he has thus waived any challenge to the length of his sentence or
to the court's sentencing procedure. See, e.g., United States v.
Henry, 848 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2017) (noting that an appellant
ordinarily "waives" any argument not raised in his opening brief).
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.0(c).

-- 2 of 2 --