Opinion ID: 2925962
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Torres's Past Arrests

Text: The crux of Torres's second argument is that the district court erred in using his prior arrests to show that he is a gun lover and does not belong on [the] streets. Torres points to various statements made by the district court as evidence that it sentenced him based on unsupported misapprehensions about the legitimacy of the three dismissed cases, and erred in using those cases as a basis to mischaracterize him. The district court described the defendant as a lucky man after his previous encounters with the law. The court also referred to him as a gun-lover and a danger to the community because [a]ll these charges got dismissed under Rule 64, which is a speedy trial basically, without prejudice [and were] never refiled. Because Torres did not preserve his objection, we review for plain error. See Fernández-Hernández, 652 F.3d at 64. -8- As an initial matter, we must determine if the district court erred in evaluating Torres's criminal history while determining his sentence. Section 3553(a)(1) states the factors that can be considered during sentencing, which include, the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). We have interpreted history and characteristics of the defendant to include a defendant's criminal history. See, e.g., United States v. Politano, 522 F.3d 69, 74-75 (1st Cir. 2008). Subsections 3553(a)(2)(B) and (C) establish that both deterrence and combating recidivism are legitimate factors to be taken into account when determining a sentence. See id. at 74 (Sections 3553(a)(1) and 3553(a)(2)(c) invite the district court to consider, broadly, 'the nature and circumstances of 'the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant' and the need for the sentence imposed . . . to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.'). Indeed, we have held that multiple arrests can be indicative of a pattern. See United States v. Zapete-García, 447 F.3d 57, 61 (1st Cir. 2006) (finding that a series of past arrests might legitimately suggest a pattern of unlawful behavior even in the absence of any convictions). The district court did not plainly err by factoring in Torres's arrest history. It is well established that a district court may consider a wide range of circumstances relating to the -9- defendant's history in fashioning a sentence. See Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 487-88 (2011). Likewise, [a] record of past arrests or dismissed charges may indicate a pattern of unlawful behavior even in the absence of any convictions. United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16, 21 (1st Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted). In the present case, it is clear that Torres's arrest record indicates a pattern of unlawful behavior as the charges were related to drugs and firearms. There was ample evidentiary support for the court's account of Torres's past pattern of criminality. The PSR shows that Torres was convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm, selling a firearm, and unlawfully possessing ammunition after pleading guilty on July 17, 2013, in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico. He also has three previous arrests for alleged violations of Puerto Rico law. These facts drawn from the PSR may be taken as established as this court has previously held that the unobjected-to facts contained in a PSR ordinarily are considered reliable evidence for sentencing purposes. United States v. Fernández-Cabrera, 625 F.3d 48, 54 (1st Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). Torres has failed to establish that the district court's use of his prior arrests and gun possession conviction constituted plain error as he has failed to show that this reliance was unreasonable or that not using the information would have led to a -10- lower sentence. Under the circumstances of this case, the district court's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable because of the court's reference to Torres's record of prior arrests.