United States v. Murchison, 1st Cir. (2017)
United States v. Murchison, 1st Cir. (2017)
United States v. Murchison, 1st Cir. (2017)
Appellee,
v.
AKYLLE MURCHISON,
Defendant, Appellant.
Before
Background
1 Paragraph 10 states:
Notably, SOI-4 [(Source of Information)] also alleged
that Akylle Murchison arranged for third parties
(usually females) to buy firearms on his behalf at local
stores in Lewiston. According to SOI-4, the serial
numbers would be scratched off those weapons, and Akylle
Murchison then arranged for the guns to be delivered to
a "gang" in Boston, known as the Norwood Bulls. It's
noted that SOI-4 did not allege these firearms were
connected to Akylle Murchisons drug activity. Instead,
- 2 -
paragraphs, or at least to initial the paragraphs and indicate
for the record that it won't make any difference with regard to
- 3 -
enter into my judgment on that."2 In due course, Murchison was
from the PSR, and therefore the matter should be remanded so the
- 4 -
which the BOP will classify and house him, and will negatively
v. Acevedo, 824 F.3d 179, 184 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting United
- 5 -
(DSCC) must receive all sentencing material, including the PSR,
Office (USPO), and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).6 Custody &
https://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/designations.jsp
(last visited July 17, 2017); see also Fed. Bureau of Prisons,
Manual].
4
The statement of reasons is a form completed after
sentencing -- it reports the court's findings and comments as to
the PSR, mandatory minimum sentence, guideline range for
sentencing, the sentencing determination, any departures or
variances from the guidelines, and the determinations of
restitution.
5
The Individual Custody and Detention Report is a USMS form
that reports information such as any aliases and gang affiliations.
6
The breakdown of events, roles, and responsibilities,
according to the BOP Manual, is: (1) "[t]he inmate is sentenced";
(2) "[t]he Clerk of the Court transmits the Judgment and Commitment
Order (old law cases) or Judgment in a Criminal Case (new law
cases) to the USMS;" (3) "[t]he USMS makes a request to the DSCC
advising that the inmate is now ready for designation to a
facility;" (4) "[i]f it has not already been provided, DSCC staff
must contact the necessary officials (USPO or USMS) for the
following: two copies of the PSR, a copy of the Judgment, to
include the SOR, and the Individual Custody and Detention Report."
BOP Manual, Ch.3, at 1.
- 6 -
So, together, Rule 32 and the BOP's system work to ensure
that the BOP classifies and processes sentenced offenders with the
Murchison complains of. Simply put, the judge complied with Rule
[the paragraphs] in the report" and "I'm not going to strike it"),
v. Melendez, 279 F.3d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting United States
v. Turner, 898 F.2d 705, 710 (9th Cir. 1990)). Nevertheless, the
judge also made it plain that he would not rely on the contested
- 7 -
Murchison's BOP angle also fails. That the BOP may see
does not compel the district court to strike it from the PSR. See,
e.g., Hopkins, 824 F.3d at 735 (rejecting argument that court was
BOP would rely on it); United States v. Beatty, 9 F.3d 686, 689
(8th Cir. 1993) ("[Rule 32] does not require that the objected-to
and SOR. BOP Custody & Care: Designations; see also Fed. R. Crim.
together, that means the BOP was equipped with the full complement
- 8 -
of sentencing information, so it was aware that, although there is
information about firearms in the PSR, the district court did not
3553(a) factors and the weight given to them), but since either
8
Determinations as to classification of prisoners and
eligibility to participate in certain programs are left to the
BOP, not the courts. See Melendez, 279 F.3d at 18 (quoting Thye
v. United States, 109 F.3d 127, 130 (2d Cir. 1997) ("Decisions to
place a convicted defendant within a particular treatment program
or a particular facility are decisions within the sole discretion
of the Bureau of Prisons.")); see also Hopkins, 824 F.3d at 735.
- 9 -
route leads to a dead end -- even using the more defendant-friendly
each.10
health issues, and more), and he also argues that he "is a good
9
Reviewing a challenged sentence requires a two-step process.
United States v. King, 741 F.3d 305, 307 (1st Cir. 2014) (citing
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). First, we resolve
claims of procedural error before inquiring into whether the
sentence is substantively reasonable. Id. at 308. We review the
procedural reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16, 20 (1st Cir. 2013).
For a preserved challenge to the substantive reasonableness of a
sentence, "we proceed under the abuse of discretion rubric, taking
account of the totality of the circumstances." United States v.
Ruiz-Huertas, 792 F.3d 223, 226 (1st Cir. 2015). Where, as here,
a defendant does not preserve an objection to the substantive
reasonableness of their sentence, "[t]he applicable standard of
review is somewhat blurred" as to whether the ordinary abuse of
discretion standard or the plain error standard applies. Id. at
228. But Murchison's challenge fails even under the abuse of
discretion standard.
10
This sentencing appeal follows a guilty plea, and we
therefore look to "the unchallenged portions of the presentence
investigation report (PSI Report), and the record of the
disposition hearing" for the relevant facts. United States v.
Vargas, 560 F.3d 45, 47 (1st Cir. 2009).
- 10 -
objected to that calculation), and stated that he had considered
seriousness of his actions but also indicate to him that the Court
this case."
complaint seems to be that "the court did not assign the weight to
States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588, 593 (1st Cir. 2011) (explaining
- 11 -
discretion, the judge pronounced a procedurally reasonable
sentence.
Affirmed.
- 12 -