Opinion ID: 2925963
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Sentences must be both procedurally and substantively reasonable. United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588, 590 (1st Cir. 2011). Mendez says his was neither. On the procedural front, he first argues that the court erred in applying the 9-level enhancement for the number of aliens induced or harbored. More to the point, he claims that (1) the court failed to make an individualized finding as to the number of aliens attributable to Mendez, (2) even if the court had, the record did not support a finding of 100 aliens, and (3) the upward adjustment resulted in double-counting.4 Mendez's second 4 Mendez also raises what he concedes is a legally unmeritorious argument simply for preservation purposes. Citing Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), Mendez argues that an upward adjustment based on judicial fact finding should be deemed unconstitutional. - 10 - procedural-based offering is that the judge failed to adequately explain why Mendez deserved a top-of-the-range sentence and instead impermissibly presumed it was reasonable because it fell within the guidelines range. With respect to substantive reasonableness, Mendez claims that his 75-month aggregate sentence was too long. Among other things, he points to the comparatively shorter sentences some of his cohorts got, his first-time offender status, and the fact that the sentence exceeded the government's recommendation. We start, and ultimately stop, with Mendez's claim that the judge erred in applying a 9-level enhancement for having induced or harbored 100 aliens. We review this claim for plain error as Mendez failed to preserve it below. United States v. Ramos, 763 F.3d 45, 56 (1st Cir. 2014). That is, we ask whether (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was clear and obvious; (3) the error affected the defendant's substantial rights; and (4) the error impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.5 Id. at 56 n.15. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine, based on this record, whether a clear and obvious error (or for that matter, 5 What the third prong of this test means in the sentencing context is that, but for the error, it is reasonably probable that the judge would have imposed a more favorable sentence. United States v. Ahrendt, 560 F.3d 69, 77 n.5 (1st Cir. 2009). And to satisfy the fourth prong, a defendant must then show that leaving the error uncorrected would cause a miscarriage of justice. Id. - 11 - any error at all) occurred. While we have on occasion gone to significant lengths in inferring the reasoning behind, and thus in affirming, some less-than-explicit explanations by district courts, there are limits. United States v. Gilman, 478 F.3d 440, 446 (1st Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). If we are in fact wholly unable to discern the court's rationale, appellate review is unworkable and a remand is necessary. Id. at 446-47. That is the case here. The judge did not make any finding with respect to whether Mendez had indeed induced or harbored 100 aliens. In fact,