United States of America v. Raymond Santana-Aviles

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter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

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM. We summarily affirm the revocation sentence
and revocation judgment in this matter. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
The sentence imposed is 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. United States v. Ruiz, 905 F.2d 499, 508 (1st Cir.
1990). There was, therefore, no abuse of discretion. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Flores-
Machicote, 706 F.3d 16, 20 (1st Cir. 2013).
So, too, the district court articulated a plausible
sentencing rationale and achieved a defensible result. See United
States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 96 (1st Cir. 2008). 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 claim of
substantive unreasonableness is without merit.
Affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --