United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 17-2005 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Appellee, 

v. 

OMAR SOSA-GONZÁLEZ, 

Defendant, Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

[Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge] 

Before 

Howard, Chief Judge, 

Lynch and Thompson, Circuit Judges. 

Luis A. Guzmán Dupont on brief for appellant. 

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

Steven Liong-Rodríguez, Special Assistant United States Attorney, 

and Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, on brief 

for appellee. 

August 14, 2018 
- 2 - 

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. This is a sentencing appeal. Omar 

Sosa-González ("Sosa") pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon 

in possession of a firearm and ammunition and to one count of 

possession of a machine gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) 

and 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) respectively. Sosa challenges his sixtysix month sentence on procedural and substantive reasonableness 

grounds. We affirm the sentence. 

I. 

The background facts are these. On March 13, 2017, 

agents of the Puerto Rican Police Department ("PRPD") were told 

that a man -- later identified as Sosa -- had been seen carrying 

a firearm in public. An agent of the PRPD then surveilled Sosa's 

residence on March 15 and 17, and saw Sosa carrying a handgun while 

Sosa walked from his car to his residence. PRPD agents then 

executed a search warrant on Sosa's residence on March 28, 2017. 

This search uncovered a loaded AK-47 rifle and 28 rounds 

of 7.62 caliber ammunition in Sosa's room. After knowingly waiving 

his rights, Sosa told the agents that the rifle belonged to him 

and that no other members of his family knew about his possession 

of the rifle. Sosa also told agents that the rifle was fully 

automatic. 

Further police investigation determined that: the rifle 

was modified to shoot more than one round of ammunition, without 

manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger; Sosa had 
- 3 - 

been convicted of crimes punishable by terms of imprisonment 

exceeding one year previously; and the rifle and ammunition had 

not been manufactured in Puerto Rico. The modification of the 

rifle made it qualify as a machine gun under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). 

In April 2017, a grand jury in the district of Puerto 

Rico indicted Sosa for being a felon in possession of a firearm 

and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and for 

possession of a machine gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). 

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Sosa stipulated to the 

facts discussed here, and agreed to plead guilty to one count of 

being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and to one 

count of possession of a machine gun. The sentencing calculation 

in the plea agreement started with a Base Offense Level of 22, 

coupled with a three-level reduction for timely acceptance of 

responsibility. 

There was no stipulation as to Sosa's Criminal History 

Category. Sosa had six state-level convictions in Puerto Rico, 

including for: unlicensed firearm possession (six month sentence), 

unlawful ammunition possession (three year and one day sentence), 

two counts of possession of controlled substances (twenty-four 

month sentence), and two counts of conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute controlled substances (thirty month 

sentence). 
- 4 - 

The parties agreed that each would seek a sentence within 

the Guidelines sentencing range ("GSR") for a Total Offense Level 

("TOL") of 19 and the relevant Criminal History Category. Sosa 

agreed to waive his right to appeal if the district court imposed 

a sentence of fifty-seven months or less, and acknowledged that 

the district court could, in its discretion, impose a sentence up 

to the statutory maximum for each offense. 

The statutory maximum for both a violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1), being a felon in possession of a firearm and 

ammunition, and for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), possession 

of a machine gun, is: an imprisonment term of not more than ten 

years, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2); supervised release of not more than 

three years, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2); and a fine of not more than 

$250,000, 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b)(3). 

The Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") noted 

Sosa's six prior convictions related to firearms and drug offenses. 

These convictions led to a criminal history score of nine, and a 

Criminal History Category of IV. Between this category and the 

TOL, the calculated GSR was forty-six to fifty-seven months. Sosa 

did not object the PSR, stating that "it reflects completely and 

fully Mr. Omar Sosa's situation as to his life, careers, education, 

substance abuse, [how] he was raised, and . . . the facts of the 

case." 
- 5 - 

Sosa then requested a sentence of forty-six months due 

to, inter alia, Sosa's repentance, his claim of possessing the 

rifle due to fear of an unidentified person who had escaped from 

jail, and his desire to better himself by attending drug treatment 

and becoming certified as a barber in prison. 

The government requested a sentence of fifty-seven 

months due to, inter alia, the "serious nature and circumstances 

of the offenses," the dangerousness of machine guns, Sosa's 

criminal history and use of illegal drugs, and his sporadic 

employment. 

The district court determined that the PSR had been 

calculated accurately. The court then imposed a sentence above 

the GSR: sixty-six months imprisonment for each count, to be served 

concurrently, and three years of supervised release. The court 

explained its reasons for this sentence. Sosa objected generally 

that this sentence "is unreasonable," and timely appealed. 

II. 

The parties agree that the waiver of appeal provision in 

the plea agreement is inapplicable, because the sentence given was 

longer than the agreed-to range. 

We generally review claims of sentencing error for 

reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. See Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); United States v. Soto-Soto, 

855 F.3d 445, 448 (1st Cir. 2017). Our analysis has two parts: 
- 6 - 

"we first determine whether the sentence imposed is procedurally 

reasonable and then determine whether it is substantively 

reasonable." United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588, 590 (1st 

Cir. 2011). In this analysis, "[w]e review the district court's 

interpretation of the guidelines de novo and its fact finding for 

clear error." United States v. Reyes-Rivera, 812 F.3d 79, 85 (1st 

Cir. 2016). 

When a defendant does not raise a procedural objection 

at sentencing, the review is instead for plain error.1 Id. Here, 

Sosa did not preserve his procedural objection. Sosa stated 

generally that "we object as to the sentence because we believe it 

is unreasonable." Sosa made no more specific objection. "A 

general objection to the procedural reasonableness of a sentence 

is not sufficient to preserve a specific challenge to any of the 

sentencing court's particularized findings. To preserve a claim 

of error . . ., an objection must be sufficiently specific to call 

the district court's attention to the asserted error." Soto-Soto, 

855 F.3d at 448 n.1. 

 1 To prevail under this demanding standard, an appellant 

must demonstrate "(1) that an error occurred (2) which was clear 

or obvious and which not only (3) affected the defendant's 

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

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." 

United States v. Rondón-García, 886 F.3d 14, 20 (1st Cir. 2018) 

(quoting United States v. Cortés-Medina, 819 F.3d 566, 569 (1st 

Cir. 2016)). 
- 7 - 

But even reviewed under the more defendant-friendly 

abuse of discretion standard, Sosa cannot meet his burden. 

A. Procedural Reasonableness 

Sosa asserts that the district court did not "consider 

all the relevant § 3553(a) factors," and did not adequately explain 

the reasons for the sentence. He further protests that the 

district court "did not give . . . adequate consideration to the 

facts of the case and the Defendant-Appellant's characteristics, 

and, instead, focused primarily on the nature of the offense to 

calculate the term of the imprisonment." Relatedly, Sosa stressed 

at the sentencing hearing that he "had the weapon because he felt 

threatened by someone . . . [and] feared for his life," but he did 

not provide any information whatsoever about this threat. 

A district court's sentence is procedurally reasonable 

if: 

the district court committed no significant 

procedural error, such as failing to calculate 

(or improperly calculating) the Guidelines 

range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, 

failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, 

selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately 

explain the chosen sentence—including an 

explanation for any deviation from the 

Guidelines range. 

United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 92 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). 
- 8 - 

As to the consideration and balance of the § 3553(a) 

factors, which Sosa primarily relies upon in his appeal, a district 

court "need not verbalize its evaluation of each and every section 

3553(a) factor." Reyes-Rivera, 812 F.3d at 89. And we have made 

clear in several cases that "a sentencing court is not required to 

address the § 3553(a) factors one by one, in some sort of rote 

incantation when explicating its sentencing decision, nor must the 

court afford each of the § 3553(a) factors equal prominence." 

United States v. Vázquez-Vázquez, 852 F.3d 62, 66 (1st Cir. 2017) 

(quoting United States v. Pulido, 566 F.3d 52, 64 (1st Cir. 2009)). 

Contrary to Sosa's assertion, the district court 

expressly discussed, and gave more than sufficient consideration 

to, several § 3553(a) factors. 

The district court first stated directly that it 

considered the sentencing factors "set forth in Title 18, United 

States Code section 3553(a)." The district court clearly laid out 

Sosa's prior convictions "for being in possession of an unlicensed 

firearm, for unlawful possession of ammunition, of conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, and of 

possession of controlled substances, all by the Carolina Superior 

Court." 

The district court then discussed and considered Sosa's 

relevant history and characteristics, including his age, 

education, employment history, and drug use. Next, the district 
- 9 - 

court discussed the nature and circumstances of the offense, 

including that the firearm in Sosa's possession had "a 30-round 

high capacity magazine containing 28 rounds of 7.62 caliber 

ammunition" and that the rifle had been "modified to shoot 

automatically." The district court also noted that machine guns 

are "dangerous and unusual weapons . . . not typically possessed 

by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." The district court 

further cited a Ninth Circuit case, United States v. Henry, 688 

F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2012), that examined the danger of machine guns, 

which "can fire more than 1,000 rounds a minute, which permits a 

shooter to kill dozens of people within a matter of seconds, 

usually innocent bystanders." 

Accordingly, the district court determined that neither 

the government's nor Sosa's suggested sentence adequately 

"reflects the serious[ness] of the offense, . . . promotes respect 

for the law, . . . or protects the public from further crimes by 

Mr. Sosa." The district court also mentioned the need for proper 

"deterrence and punishment." 

Given this ample consideration of § 3553(a) factors by 

the district court, Sosa's suggestion that the district court "did 

not give . . . adequate consideration to the facts of the case and 

the Defendant-Appellant's characteristics" indicates that Sosa's 

"real complaint is not that the [district] court failed to consider 

the section 3553(a) factors, but that the court did not assign the 
- 10 - 

weight to certain factors that [Sosa] thought appropriate." United 

States v. Ruiz–Huertas, 792 F.3d 223, 227 (1st Cir. 2015). 

Needless to say, this does not constitute abuse of discretion. 

B. Substantive Reasonableness 

Sosa also challenges the substantive reasonableness of 

his sentence. He argues generally that the district court 

"fail[ed] to consider mitigating factors," and specifically that 

the district court "insufficiently considered . . . the 'history 

and characteristics of the defendant.'" Sosa mentions no other 

mitigating factors specifically.2 

We typically review the substantive reasonableness of a 

sentence for abuse of discretion, considering the totality of the 

circumstances. See Ruiz–Huertas, 792 F.3d at 226. Sosa's claim 

is waived, however, because Sosa makes no specific argument that 

demonstrates how different weighing or consideration of 

potentially mitigating factors would have changed the outcome of 

the case. Even if we were to excuse Sosa's waiver, the sentencing 

court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him. 

A sentence is substantively reasonable if there is "a 

plausible sentencing rationale and a defensible result." Martin, 

520 F.3d at 96. The district court met these requirements by 

 2 Sosa also rehashes his argument that the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors were inadequately explained. As articulated 

above, the district court suitably explained its reasoning under 

these factors. 
- 11 - 

considering, inter alia, Sosa's criminal history, his drug use, 

and the dangerousness of machine guns. After all, "[t]hat the 

sentencing court chose not to attach to certain of the mitigating 

factors the significance that the appellant thinks they deserved 

does not make the sentence unreasonable." Clogston, 662 F.3d at 

593. 

"There is no one reasonable sentence in any given case 

but, rather, a universe of reasonable sentencing outcomes." Id. 

at 592. The district court's sixty-six month sentence -- 

representing a modest upward variance from the GSR -- was well 

within this universe of the reasonable. 

III. 

 For the reasons set forth above, we affirm Sosa's 

sentence.