United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 17-1549 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Appellee, 

v. 

ANGEL MORALES-DE JESUS, 

a/k/a Maca, a/k/a Macarron, a/k/a El Gordo, a/k/a David Morales, 

Defendant, Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

[Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge] 

Before 

Howard, Chief Judge, 

Lynch and Thompson, Circuit Judges. 

John E. Mudd and Law Offices of John E. Mudd, by appointment 

of the court, on brief for appellant. 

B. Kathryn Debrason, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, 

Appellate Division, and Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States 

Attorney, on brief for appellee. 

July 18, 2018 
- 2 - 

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. This is a sentencing appeal. 

Angel Morales-De Jesus ("Morales") pleaded guilty to leading a 

large drug distribution conspiracy in Puerto Rico housing projects 

over a five-year period and to the use and carrying of a firearm 

in connection with that drug offense. His plea agreement 

calculated an offense level of 31 for the conspiracy charge and 

recommended a total sentence of 180 months' imprisonment. 

The calculations in the presentence report (PSR) and the 

later addendum to the PSR were far less generous to Morales in the 

offense level and recommendations. The first PSR also recounted 

that the estimated gross drug proceeds were just under $5 million. 

At sentencing, the district court calculated a higher offense level 

than the plea agreement: 33, and imposed a longer total sentence: 

228 months' imprisonment. 

On appeal, Morales challenges first the district court's 

application of a four-level leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. 

§ 3B1.1(a) and second the sentence's substantive reasonableness. 

There was no error at all on either assertion and so we affirm. 

I. 

From at least 2010 until 2015, Morales led a drug 

trafficking organization. His organization distributed crack 

cocaine, cocaine, marijuana, and other controlled substances in 

public housing projects in Patillas, Puerto Rico. Morales was 

arrested on April 22, 2015.
- 3 - 

In September 2016, Morales entered into a plea 

agreement. He pleaded guilty to possession of, among other things, 

between five and fifteen kilograms of cocaine with intent to 

distribute it, and to using or carrying a firearm in relation to 

that drug offense. The parties agreed to recommend that Morales 

receive a two-level leadership enhancement for the conspiracy 

charge,1 putting his offense level at thirty-one. The parties also 

agreed to recommend the applicable mandatory minimum sentences: 

120 months for the conspiracy charge and 60 months for the firearm 

charge, to be served consecutively, for a total of 180 months' 

imprisonment. At the close of Morales's change of plea hearing, 

the magistrate judge recommended that the district court accept 

the guilty plea. 

Two months later, a probation officer prepared Morales's 

PSR. That report listed twenty-eight co-defendants alongside 

Morales. Unlike the plea agreement, the PSR recommended a fourlevel leadership enhancement -- bringing Morales's offense level 

to 33 -- based on his actions as "the main leader of the drug 

trafficking organization, which involved five or more 

participants." See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). The PSR listed 28 coconspirators in addition to Morales by name and position. 

 1 The firearm charge is precluded from guideline 

application under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4(b). That provision also 

provides that the guideline sentence is the applicable mandatory 

minimum. 
- 4 - 

Morales's criminal history category at that time was III, but that 

did not include a state offense described below. 

In February 2017, before federal sentencing, Morales 

pleaded guilty to Puerto Rico offenses unrelated to the federal 

offenses. The state plea agreement exposed Morales to thirteen 

years' state imprisonment. In light of this development, the 

probation office filed an addendum to the original PSR. This 

addendum noted that "[Morales's] criminal history category 

substantially under-represents the seriousness of the [sic] his 

criminal history or the likelihood that he will commit other 

crimes." It observed that the inadequacy of Morales's criminal 

history category might warrant an upward departure. 

The district court sentenced Morales in May 2017. It 

applied the four-level leadership enhancement, closely tracking 

language from the PSR: 

Defendant acted as the main leader of the drug 

trafficking organization which involved five 

or more participants, and he had supervisory 

authority over the affairs of the drug 

trafficking organization, therefore, a fourlevel increase is applied under Guideline 

Section 3B1.1(a).

Like the original PSR, the district court calculated an offense 

level of 33, putting Morales's guidelines range for the conspiracy 

charge at 168 to 210 months' imprisonment based on his criminal 

history category of III. See U.S.S.G. ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing 

table). The district court imposed a sentence at the bottom of 
- 5 - 

this new range: 168 months. Morales's firearm charge yielded a 

60-month sentence, to be served consecutively with his conspiracy 

sentence, for a total of 228 months' imprisonment.2

II. 

A. 

Morales first objects to the leadership enhancement 

under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Because he raised no such objection to 

the district court, as he concedes, we review for plain error. 

United States v. Ruiz-Huertas, 792 F.3d 223, 226 (1st Cir. 2015). 

On plain error review, Morales must establish that there was (1) an 

error that was (2) clear or obvious and that not only (3) affected 

his substantial rights, but also (4) seriously impaired the 

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. 

Id. 

Morales argues that the district court erroneously 

applied a four-level leadership enhancement, because, in his 

words, "the indictment does not establish the four or more 

participants" (in addition to Morales) required for a four-level 

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Morales does not dispute 

his leadership of the organization; he challenges only the number 

of participants. 

 2 The district court also imposed 10 years' supervised 

release for the conspiracy count and 5 years' supervised release 

for the firearm count, to be served concurrently. Morales does 

not challenge his supervised release terms. 
- 6 - 

This argument is meritless. The district court in 

sentencing referred to "the serious nature of the offense" and 

"[Morales's] role as principal leader of the drug trafficking 

organization." Morales has not provided us with a copy of his 

indictment and has not challenged the government's assertion that 

the indictment listed all 28 of his co-defendants. A "district 

court has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the Guidelines 

range it considers is correct." Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 

138 S. Ct. 1897, 1904 (2018). Here, the district court had ample 

support for its conclusion that Morales led a "drug trafficking 

organization which involved five or more participants." First, 

the PSR listed twenty-eight co-conspirators in addition to 

Morales. And second, by the time she sentenced Morales, the 

district judge had already sentenced fourteen of Morales's coconspirators. Morales has advanced no argument to explain why he 

was a leader of fewer than four of those co-conspirators. 

A district court need not make specific findings 

justifying its application of a role-in-the-offense enhancement if 

"the record clearly reflects the basis of the court's 

determination." United States v. Marrero-Ortiz, 160 F.3d 768, 779 

(1st Cir. 1998). Here, as in Chavez-Meza v. United States, "there 

was not much else for the judge to say." 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1967 

(2018). There was no error at all in assigning Morales a fourlevel leadership enhancement. 
- 7 - 

To the extent Morales now disputes the list of twentyeight co-conspirators in his PSR, that argument is waived. Puerto 

Rico Local Rule 132(b)(3)(A) requires that any objection to a PSR 

be made within fourteen days of that report's disclosure. Morales 

raised no such objection. Cf. United States v. Turbides-Leonardo, 

468 F.3d 34, 37-38 (1st Cir. 2006). 

Morales's procedural challenge fails. 

B. 

Morales next argues that his 228-month federal sentence 

is substantively unreasonable. In particular, he argues that this 

sentence is unreasonable in light of the further 13 years he will 

likely spend in state prison on the state charges. The government 

concedes that Morales preserved this challenge by requesting 

reconsideration after the district court pronounced the sentence. 

The district court denied reconsideration. We review for abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Cortés-Medina, 819 F.3d 566, 569 

(1st Cir. 2016). 

To undercut the substantive reasonableness of a withinguidelines sentence like Morales's, a defendant must furnish 

"powerful mitigating reasons and persuade us that the district 

judge was unreasonable in balancing pros and cons despite the 

latitude implicit in saying that a sentence must be 'reasonable.'" 

United States v. Navedo-Concepción, 450 F.3d 54, 59 (1st Cir. 

2006). 
- 8 - 

Morales offers no reasons, whether powerful or not, for 

us to find his sentence unreasonable. He relies merely on 

conclusory statements "unaccompanied by some effort at developed 

argumentation." United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st 

Cir. 1990). Because Morales has not met his obligation "to spell 

out [his] arguments squarely and distinctly," id. (quoting RiveraGomez v. de Castro, 843 F.2d 631, 635 (1st Cir. 1988)), they are 

waived. 

In any event, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion. It found the 228-month sentence justified by "the 

serious nature of the offense, [Morales's] role as principal leader 

of the drug trafficking organization, personal characteristics and 

prior criminal record." It considered mitigating factors like 

Morales's limited education and the fact that he has a young child. 

Morales was in fact sentenced at the bottom of his guidelines 

range. The court considered and rejected defense counsel's request 

for reconsideration in light of Morales's likely 13-year state 

sentence. 

Sentencing represents a "'judgment call' involving an 

intricate array of factors." United States v. Flores-Machicote, 

706 F.3d 16, 21 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Martin, 

520 F.3d 87, 92 (1st Cir. 2008)). The district court weighed those 

factors, providing a "plausible sentencing rationale and a 
- 9 - 

defensible result." Martin, 520 F.3d at 96. As such, Morales's 

228-month sentence is substantively reasonable. 

III. 

The district court committed no error, plain or 

otherwise. Morales's sentence stands. Affirmed.