United States v. A.R.

81 F.4th 13

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. A.R., Defendant, Appellant.

No. 21-1700

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

September 14, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge]

Joanna E. LeRoy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, with whom Eric Alexander Vos, Federal Public Defender, Franco L. Pérez-Redondo, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Supervisor, Appeals Section, and Alejandra Bird-López, Research and Writing Specialist, were on brief, for appellant.

Gregory B. Conner, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, and Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, were on brief, for appellee.

Before Gelpí, Lynch, and Montecalvo, Circuit Judges.

GELPÍ, Circuit Judge.

A.R., born in 2003, was adjudicated delinquent in a proceeding under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act ("FJDA"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5042, pursuant to his admission of aiding and abetting an attempted robbery of a motor vehicle (Count One) and five carjackings (Counts Two through Six), all of which would have been a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1) and (2) had he been an adult. The district court ordered A.R. detained in a juvenile institution until he reaches twenty-one years of age, followed by a term of juvenile delinquent supervision.

A.R. primarily challenges the district court's order of a detention period rather than a probationary one. Specifically, A.R. posits that the district court erred in: (1) making an incorrect -- but unobjected to -- comment at the admission hearing that a substantial assistance motion from the government would be necessary in order to consider A.R.'s cooperation; (2) ordering a Presentence Report ("PSR"), as requested by his trial counsel, instead of a "comprehensive study" as provided for in the FJDA, see 18 U.S.C. § 5037(e); and (3) considering and improperly weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in its disposition. Additionally, A.R. claims that the district court erred in failing to recommend that A.R. be placed in a local detention facility. Separately, the government and A.R. agree that the district court erred in imposing a term of detention and supervision that together exceeded the applicable statutory maximum.

After careful review, we affirm the district court as to its imposition of detention rather than a probationary period. However, we remand to the district court the last two matters.

I. Background

Relevant Facts

The events giving rise to this case date back to late 2019 and early 2020, when A.R. had not yet reached his eighteenth birthday and he committed a sequence of carjackings alongside another then-minor ("L.R.") and an adult, Erick De Jesús-Torres ("De Jesús").

December 20, 2019: The First Carjacking

On the night of December 20, 2019, L.R. requested an Uber ride for the trio from the Manuel A. Pérez public housing project in San Juan to Carolina, two cities in Puerto Rico. The Uber driver arrived in a blue Toyota C-HR. A.R. and L.R. sat in the back, while De Jesús sat in the passenger seat. Once at their destination, De Jesús stopped the Uber car's engine as L.R. exited the vehicle and, holding a weapon, opened the driver's door and told him to get out of the car. The Uber driver complied, and the trio, after searching his pockets, drove the Toyota C-HR back to the Manuel A. Pérez public housing project. Later that night, the three went for a ride in the stolen vehicle and were involved in an accident. They fled the scene afoot.

December 23, 2019: The Second Carjacking

Three days after the first carjacking, L.R. requested an Uber ride for the same trio from the Ernesto Ramos Antonini public housing project in San Juan. The Uber driver arrived in a white Hyundai Accent and took them to some location, which from the record cannot be adduced. Once there, De Jesús stopped the vehicle's engine while L.R. took the driver out of the car, searched the driver, seized from her $350 in cash, and left her there, with A.R. driving the trio to the Manuel A. Pérez public housing project in the Hyundai Accent. L.R. and De Jesús then went out for a ride in the carjacked vehicle while A.R. remained at L.R.'s apartment.

December 31, 2019: The Third Carjacking

New Year's Eve did not stop the trio from further wrongdoing. Again at the Manuel A. Pérez public housing project, L.R. requested an Uber ride. A driver in a red Hyundai Elantra picked them up and took them to their specified location. Upon arrival, De Jesús stopped the vehicle's engine, exited, and walked around the car. He opened the driver's door and told the driver to get out. The victim reported that the trio gestured as though they had a weapon, but he did not actually see it. L.R. searched the driver and got into his seat. The three carjackers then drove back to the housing project, leaving the driver behind.

Night of January 2-3, 2020: Attempted Carjacking and Two New Successful Carjackings

At approximately 10:40 p.m. on January 2, 2020, A.R., L.R., and De Jesús requested an Uber ride from a location near the Plaza Escorial Mall in Carolina. A female driver picked them up in her blue Kia Soul and drove them to their drop-off location. Upon arrival, De Jesús stopped the vehicle's engine while L.R. held what appeared to be a firearm to the driver's neck. Defiantly, the driver refused to exit the car. L.R. unbuckled the driver's seatbelt, while De Jesús took her cellphone and ordered her to unlock it. The driver told them that they could shoot her but she was not going to let go of her car. Right after, L.R. struck the driver in the face and ordered her not to look at him. A struggle ensued as she grabbed the steering wheel while both A.R. and L.R. again struck her several times in an attempt to remove her from the vehicle. The driver started honking the vehicle's horn repeatedly, and the trio eventually fled on foot towards a nearby bowling alley with $120 in cash taken from the driver and her cellphone.

At the bowling alley, a friend of L.R. called them an Uber ride. An Uber driver arrived in a white Hyundai Accent and drove them to their specified location (undisclosed in the record). When they arrived, De Jesús stopped the car's engine, while L.R. stepped out, took the driver out of the car, searched him, and returned to the back seat. A.R. moved to the driver's seat, drove to Plaza Carolina Mall, and parked the carjacked vehicle near a restaurant.

From there, L.R. requested another Uber ride for the group. This time a black Toyota Yaris picked them up. At some point during the trip, L.R. ordered the Uber driver to make a U-turn. The driver complied. Immediately, L.R. told the driver to get out of the car while pointing a pellet gun at the driver's head. The driver exited his vehicle. After frisking the Uber driver, L.R. sat in the back seat and A.R. again drove the trio back to Plaza Carolina Mall.

The Arrest

Meanwhile, around midnight on January 3, 2020, the Uber driver of the blue Kia Soul utilized the "Find my iPhone" application, which showed her that her stolen cellphone was located in the Plaza Carolina Mall parking lot. At approximately 12:30 a.m., she went to the mall with a friend who was a Carolina Municipal Police Officer ("CMPO"). Upon their arrival, the driver spotted A.R., L.R., and De Jesús, who had just dropped off the stolen black Toyota Yaris and were then standing outside a restaurant. The driver identified them as the subjects who attempted to carjack her hours earlier. The CMPO announced himself as a police officer and issued commands to the trio, which were not obeyed. L.R. pointed a pistol at the CMPO, got in one of the stolen cars, and drove off. A.R. and De Jesús fled on foot. The CMPO chased them, intercepted De Jesús, and attempted to arrest him. A struggle ensued, in which De Jesús grabbed the CMPO's firearm, firing a round that struck De Jesús in the torso. The CMPO was also injured in the struggle. De Jesús and A.R. fled, and the CMPO pursued them in his vehicle. Both were ultimately arrested.¹

Later on January 3, FBI Task Force Agents interviewed both A.R. -- in the presence of his mother -- and De Jesús. A.R. admitted to attempting to carjack the Uber driver of the blue Kia Soul using a fake firearm. A.R. also admitted to committing the three carjackings on December 20, 23, and 31, 2019, and the two carjackings following the attempted carjacking of the blue Kia Soul with De Jesús and L.R.

Legal Proceedings

That same day, on January 3, 2020, the government filed a juvenile information² charging A.R. with attempted carjacking, which had he been an adult would have amounted to a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119(1) and (2). The government filed a certification to proceed under the FJDA by asserting a "substantial federal interest in the case . . . due to the violent nature of the crime affecting interstate commerce." See 18 U.S.C. § 5032. The government simultaneously filed a motion to transfer A.R. for prosecution as an adult. See id. After a magistrate judge ordered A.R. detained,³ he began to cooperate with the government, which ultimately included, among other acts, testifying before a grand jury. Given A.R.'s cooperation, the government eventually declined to press its motion to transfer his case for prosecution as an adult.⁴

On April 5, 2021, the government filed a juvenile superseding information charging A.R. with the attempted carjacking (Count One) and five additional carjackings (Counts Two to Six) that he committed along with De Jesús and L.R.

Juvenile Proceedings Terminology

In juvenile delinquency proceedings the precise legal terminology used differs from that of adult criminal proceedings. Because we shall employ that same terminology, it is important to briefly explain the terms used in this opinion. Juveniles do not "plead guilty" to "crimes," but rather "admit" to conduct. The analogy to a change of plea...