Opinion ID: 2798309
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lack of Remorse Finding

Text: Maisonet also argues that the court committed clear error by concluding that he lacked remorse for his commission of the offense. We will not find clear error unless on the entire evidence [we are] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. Brown, 298 F.3d 120, 122 (1st Cir. 2002) (alterations in the original) (citation omitted). At the sentencing hearing, the district court made a specific finding that Maisonet did not show any repentance. The district court supported this finding with the fact that Maisonet was the one responsible for devising and running the entire fraudulent scheme; he was the main player, who recruited and paid others to participate with him in the scheme; and he was the sole holder of the bank account where the fraud proceeds were deposited. Yet, Maisonet had tried to minimize his participation during his allocution. The court stated that the way Maisonet behaved during his allocution was a reflection of how he has always proceeded in life. Specifically, it stated that throughout his life, Maisonet -16- has displayed a conduct in which he has managed to get away with whatever he wants, and that his conduct reflects so, and that even his demeanor . . . betrayed him . . . in court. Based on the evidence on the record, we do not find that the district court's conclusion that Maisonet lacked remorse was erroneous, clearly or otherwise. D. Denial of Downward Departure and Non-Guidelines Sentence Maisonet next argues that the district court did not acknowledg[e] the combination of factors that could justify the imposition of a non-Guidelines sentence of time served. He, however, failed to develop this argument. In fact, he did not discuss, or even mention, which were the factors that allegedly justified a sentence below the Guidelines. Thus, this argument is waived. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) (holding that arguments raised in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived). Finally, we reject Maisonet's broader challenge that the district court should have granted a downward departure and imposed a non-Guidelines sentence of time served, as recommended by the parties in the plea agreement.7 7 We note that the district court was not bound by the parties' plea agreement, and Maisonet was fully aware of this when he decided to plead guilty. Specifically, through the provisions of the plea agreement, and at the change of plea hearing, Maisonet was warned that the plea agreement merely contained a recommended -17- A district court's discretionary decision not to depart from the Guidelines is reviewed for reasonableness. Battle, 637 F.3d at 51-52 (citing United States v. Anonymous Defendant, 629 F.3d 68, 73-75 (1st Cir. 2010)). Here, the district court met the reasonableness standard. It considered Maisonet's arguments but found them unpersuasive because of Maisonet's leading role in the offense, his criminal history, his clear disregard for the law and the rights of his victims, the seriousness of his offense, and the timing of its occurrence, having been committed while on probation for a previous offense. We find no abuse of discretion. In sum, although Maisonet and the government requested a sentence of time served, the district court, within its discretion, found that a sentence within the applicable Guidelines sentencing range was sufficient but not greater than necessary. The district court carefully considered all relevant factors and explained in detail the basis for its conclusion that Maisonet warranted a Guidelines sentence. This was a defensible result, and the court stated a plausible rationale for reaching it. See United States v. Ramos, 763 F.3d 45, 58 (1st Cir. 2014). sentence and that the court was free to disregard the recommendations of the parties and impose a different sentence (higher or lower) than the one recommended in the plea agreement. -18-