Criminal – Sentencing

Listen to this article

Where a defendant who was sentenced to 90 months has challenged an 18-month upward variance, that variance was properly based on 279 rounds of ammunition and 10 magazines (seven of which were high-capacity) that the defendant possessed at the time of his arrest.

Affirmed.

“Defendant-Appellant Onic Maldonado appeals from the district court’s judgment imposing a ninety-six-month sentence for possessing machine guns and being a felon in possession of firearms. Mr. Maldonado argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court did not adequately explain its reasons for an eighteen-month upward variance, base its sentence on a plausible sentencing rationale, or properly weigh mitigating factors concerning his personal characteristics. After careful consideration, we conclude that the district court did not err. We therefore affirm. …

“… Mr. Maldonado correctly notes that the dangerous nature of a machine gun cannot alone provide an adequate basis for an upward variance. … But here, the court ‘appropriately emphasized the dangerousness’ of Mr. Maldonado’s machine guns ‘alongside other, case-specific factors,’ … including: (1) Mr. Maldonado’s possession of 279 rounds of ammunition, 10 magazines (including 7 of high capacity), more than 1 machine gun, and a micro-conversion kit; (2) his commission of the instant offense while on supervised release for another firearm-possession conviction; and (3) the fact that ‘Mr. Maldonado did not just have these firearms, magazines, and ammunition stored away’ but ‘was actively surveilling the rooftop’ with them. Because the court did not give dispositive weight to the inherent dangerousness of machine guns, but rather considered it along with ‘other valid and individualized factors,’ … the court did not err. …

“And the other factors identified by the court were indeed valid considerations. …

“On their own, the large amount of ammunition and number of magazines Mr. Maldonado possessed likely would be ‘independently sufficient to support’ the court’s modest upward variance. … But the court also identified several other factors ‘not adequately captured by the guideline range’ that lend further support to its decision. …

“We turn next to whether the district court’s sentence was substantively reasonable. …

“The district court did not err in imposing a ninety-six-month sentence, reflecting an eighteen-month upward variance. As we have explained, the court properly identified several ‘aggravating factors not already accounted for by the guidelines’ that supported a variance. …

“The district court ‘conduct[ed] an “individualized assessment” of the §3553(a) factors’ by considering not only the aggravating factors detailed above, but also Mr. Maldonado’s ‘mitigating characteristics.’ …

“For all these reasons, the sentence imposed by the district court is affirmed.”

United States v. Maldonado-Velazquez (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-010-26) (20 pages) (Dunlap, J.) Appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (Docket No. 24-1746) (Jan. 16, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.