Background
Brian Jeriel Acevedo-Rodríguez pleaded guilty to eleven Hobbs Act robberies and six carjackings committed over a three-week span from November 14 to December 3, 2018, plus one count of discharging a firearm in relation to one robbery. The crimes involved actual and threatened violence, including brandishing and discharge of firearms. Under a plea agreement, the government dismissed seven § 924(c) counts in exchange for Acevedo-Rodríguez’s guilty pleas, and both parties requested a 207-month sentence, which the district court imposed on March 12, 2021.
Following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in United States v. Taylor holding that attempted Hobbs Act Robbery is not categorically a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), Acevedo-Rodríguez’s § 924(c) conviction was vacated on collateral attack. At resentencing, the Probation Office calculated a Guidelines range of 97–121 months on the remaining counts, but the government again argued for the original 207-month aggregate sentence. The district court re-imposed 207 months.
Acevedo-Rodríguez appealed, challenging both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit affirmed the 207-month sentence. On procedural reasonableness, the court found no plain error. The district court properly considered the numerosity of Acevedo-Rodríguez’s offenses as an aggravating factor even though the Guidelines range calculation, through its multiple-count adjustments and per-count enhancements, accounted for only six of the seventeen total crimes. Eleven counts had no effect on the final offense level, and the firearm conduct and violence across the entire spree were not fully reflected in the Guidelines computation. The court thus properly considered these factors as independent bases for an upward variance.
On mitigating factors, the court did not err by not explicitly addressing age, prior drug use, and rehabilitation. Because defense counsel thoroughly debated these factors at sentencing, the court’s silence suggested it found them unconvincing rather than ignored them—a permissible exercise of judicial discretion. The sentencing court expressly stated it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the defendant’s lack of criminal record, and the parties’ memoranda.
On substantive reasonableness, the sentence was reasonable and within the universe of defensible sentencing outcomes. The court provided an adequate explanation grounded in the seriousness and breadth of Acevedo-Rodríguez’s conduct, and the 207-month sentence—exceeding the top of the Guidelines range by approximately 70 percent—was defensible given the circumstances. The dismissed § 924(c) counts, which carried a combined fifty-two years in mandatory minimum sentences, were properly considered as relevant conduct.
Key Takeaways
- When multiple closely related counts are involved, the Guidelines calculation uses only the highest offense level and adjustments for additional units (capped at five), meaning conduct underlying other counts can constitute valid grounds for an upward variance without double-counting.
- A sentencing court need not explicitly mention mitigating factors if they were thoroughly debated at sentencing; silence can indicate they were considered but found unpersuasive rather than ignored.
- Conduct underlying counts dismissed in a plea agreement can be considered as relevant conduct at resentencing to justify an upward variance.
- Upward variances exceeding 70 percent of the Guidelines maximum can be substantively reasonable when the circumstances—including the seriousness, breadth, and violence of the conduct—warrant such a departure.
- Appellate review of sentencing gives considerable deference to the district court’s judgment, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard that recognizes “a universe of reasonable sentencing outcomes” rather than one correct sentence.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on how federal courts calculate Guidelines ranges in multi-count cases and when conduct underlying those counts can independently support upward variances. It clarifies that appellate courts will uphold significant sentence increases when district courts provide adequate explanations rooted in factors not fully captured by the Guidelines—a critical point for practitioners challenging or defending substantial departures. The opinion also illustrates how collateral attacks vacating individual convictions affect resentencing, and that dismissed counts remain relevant to the sentencing inquiry.
For defendants, the ruling reinforces the narrow path for appellate success on sentencing challenges: mitigating factors must receive explicit attention, or their absence from a silent record will be attributed to lack of persuasiveness rather than oversight. For prosecutors and courts, the decision validates consideration of the full factual predicate of a defendant’s conduct, even when Guidelines calculations mechanically limit its numerical impact on the final offense level.