Large Ammunition Quantity and Multiple (High-Capacity) Magazines Can Independently Justify an Upward Variance When the Guidelines Do Not Account for That Quantity

1. Introduction

In United States v. Del-Valle-Camacho (1st Cir. Jan. 14, 2026), the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed a nineteen-month upward variance (from a 33–41 month guideline range to 60 months) imposed on Christian Del-Valle-Camacho after he pleaded guilty to escape from a court-ordered residential re-entry facility (18 U.S.C. § 751) and felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8)).

The case arose after Del-Valle-Camacho failed to return to the re-entry facility following a drive-by shooting near him. When U.S. Marshals arrested him roughly two months later, they found in plain view a Glock pistol modified to shoot automatically, seven 9mm magazines (five high-capacity), and 152 rounds of 9mm ammunition.

The central appellate issues were whether the 60-month sentence was: (1) procedurally unreasonable because the district court allegedly failed to adequately explain the upward variance; and (2) substantively unreasonable because the variance allegedly relied on factors already accounted for by the Guidelines without a sufficient explanation of why this case fell outside the ordinary (“mine-run”) firearm case.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The First Circuit affirmed. It held:

• Procedural reasonableness: Because Del-Valle-Camacho did not specifically object to any procedural sentencing error, review was for plain error. The panel found no error: the sentencing record sufficiently revealed the district court’s rationale—chiefly, the unusually large amount of ammunition and the number/capacity of magazines—which distinguished the case from “average” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cases.
• Substantive reasonableness: Under abuse-of-discretion review, the district court had a plausible rationale and reached a defensible result. The panel rejected the argument that United States v. Rivera-Berríos categorically forbids reliance on guideline-accounted factors; rather, Rivera-Berríos allows reliance on such factors if the court explains why they warrant “extra weight” or why the case differs from the mine-run. The panel emphasized circuit precedent approving upward variances based on ammunition quantity and extended/high-capacity magazines, and concluded that the ammunition and magazines here were independently sufficient to support the variance.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The opinion is best understood as synthesizing three lines of First Circuit sentencing precedent: (1) appellate review structure and standards; (2) what counts as an adequate explanation for a variance (including inference from the record); and (3) when ammunition/magazine quantity takes a firearms case outside the guideline “heartland.”

1) Framework for sentencing appeals: procedural then substantive

• United States v. Flores-Quiñones and United States v. Reyes-Torres supplied the “bifurcated” method: appellate courts review procedural reasonableness first and then substantive reasonableness. Del-Valle-Camacho follows that sequencing and treats the two inquiries as related but distinct.

2) Preservation and plain error: the cost of a non-specific objection

• United States v. Cordero-Velázquez (quoting United States v. Reyes-Correa) set the preservation rule: to preserve procedural sentencing error, the objection must be “sufficiently specific” to alert the district court to the asserted error. Del-Valle-Camacho’s counsel objected generally to the sentence, so the procedural claim was unpreserved.
• United States v. Cruz-Ramos, United States v. Rondón-García, and United States v. Cortés-Medina provided the four-part “plain error” test and the admonition that it is “not appellant-friendly.” This doctrinal posture matters: a defendant who fails to raise a specific procedural objection must clear a far higher bar on appeal.

3) What “adequate explanation” requires for an upward variance

• United States v. Pupo (quoting United States v. Díaz-Rivera) restated the core rule: it is procedural error to fail to adequately explain a sentence, including any deviation from the Guidelines.
• United States v. Flores-Nater (quoting United States v. Muñoz-Fontanez) supplied two principles that the panel used as a comparator: (a) the court’s “burden of explanation” increases with the magnitude of deviation, and (b) a “mere listing” of facts and § 3553(a) factors without a case-specific rationale can be inadequate—especially for very large variances.
• United States v. Valle-Colón (quoting United States v. Díaz-Lugo) and United States v. Cordero-Velázquez (quoting United States v. Reyes-Correa) reinforced that an upward variance should be anchored in factors not adequately accounted for by the Guidelines and should articulate why the defendant’s case differs from the guideline “norm.”
• United States v. Montero-Montero articulated the “fair inference from the sentencing record” concept. The panel repeatedly relied on this idea to uphold the explanation here: even if the sentencing judge did not deliver a lengthy final statement, the rationale could be gleaned from the overall hearing.
• United States v. Colón-Cordero (quoting United States v. Carrasquillo-Sánchez) illustrated how appellate courts may infer rationale by comparing what the parties argued with what the sentencing judge did—an approach that supported affirmance because the judge echoed the government’s emphasis on ammunition and magazines.
• United States v. Polaco-Hance was used to underscore that a record can contain “enough information” to evaluate reasoning even if the explanation is not extensive at the moment of pronouncement.
• United States v. Turbides-Leonardo provided the caution that “brevity is not to be confused with inattention,” helping the panel justify affirmance where the judge’s rationale was concise but recurrent throughout the hearing.
• The opinion distinguished a set of cases reversing for lack of explanation: United States v. Ortiz-Pérez, United States v. Muñoz-Fontanez, United States v. Mantha, United States v. Montero-Montero, and United States v. Rivera-Gonzalez. The unifying theme in those cases was an “empty” record from which no rationale could be inferred—unlike the present case, where ammunition and magazine details were repeatedly highlighted and explicitly tied to why this was not an “average” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 case.

4) Substantive reasonableness: “plausible rationale” and “defensible result”

• United States v. Colón-De Jesús (quoting United States v. De Jesús-Torres) supplied the operative formulation: the key inquiry is whether the court articulated a plausible rationale and reached a defensible result.
• United States v. Burgos (quoting United States v. Rivera-Morales and Polaco-Hance) emphasized the “universe of reasonable sentencing outcomes,” reinforcing deference even for outside-range sentences.
• United States v. Martin and United States v. Guzman-Fernandez (via Polaco-Hance) were invoked to stress that upward variances must be justified in magnitude and tied to offense circumstances or offender characteristics, and must explain how the defendant’s situation differs from the ordinary guideline case.
• United States v. Contreras-Delgado supported the opinion’s theme of “considerable deference” to district courts, including for variant sentences.
• United States v. Rivera-Morales and United States v. Vargas-García served to reject efforts to have the appellate court reweigh sentencing judgment; the panel framed Del-Valle-Camacho’s argument as an invitation to substitute his preference for the sentencing court’s discretion.

5) Ammunition and magazines as aggravating facts taking a case outside the heartland

• United States v. Rivera-Berríos was the centerpiece of Del-Valle-Camacho’s substantive argument, but the panel read it narrowly and consistently with later precedent: factors may overlap with the Guidelines if the court explains why the case differs from the mine-run or why the factor deserves extra weight.
• United States v. Mercado-Cañizares (quoting Polaco-Hance) was cited for the proposition that ammunition quantity and the number of extended magazines can be valid bases for an upward variance, and that such facts can be “independently sufficient” to support an upward variance.
• United States v. Bruno-Campos provided the “heartland” concept: ammunition/magazine facts can remove a case from the heartland of the relevant guideline.
• United States v. García-Mojica reinforced that “extra ammunition” can properly aggravate because it increases lethalness and may not be contemplated by the relevant guideline.
• United States v. Morales-Vélez played a dual role: it acknowledged that U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3) contemplates an ammunition quantity “consistent with simple possession of a machine gun,” but clarified that where quantity exceeds that baseline, courts may treat ammunition as an aggravating factor not already accounted for by the Guidelines.
• United States v. Rosario-Merced supplied the key move the panel made here: if the Guidelines “did not account” for the significant amount of ammunition involved, an upward variance is justified.
• The opinion further anchored proportionality by citing affirmed variances with comparable or lesser ammunition: Morales-Vélez, Polaco-Hance, United States v. Rivera-Santiago, and Mercado-Cañizares. This comparative method supported the conclusion that 60 months for 152 rounds and seven magazines (five high-capacity) fell within the “universe” of reasonableness.

B. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in disciplined steps:

1. Identify the standard of review that controls the outcome. Because there was no specific procedural objection, procedural review was confined to plain error—a doctrinal choice that substantially narrowed the appellate court’s willingness to reverse.
2. Locate the sentencing rationale in the record as a whole. Rather than demanding a formalistic “magic words” explanation at the moment of sentencing, the panel used record inference principles (especially Montero-Montero) to find a coherent explanation: the judge repeatedly emphasized the ammunition and magazine count and explicitly stated these facts made the case “may not be an average case.”
3. Link the aggravating facts to § 3553(a) objectives. The sentencing judge tied the variance to “seriousness,” “respect for the law,” protection of the public, deterrence, and punishment. The panel accepted that the combination of a modified pistol and unusually large ammunition supply could rationally bear on dangerousness and deterrence.
4. Reject the “double counting” argument through the “mine-run” framework. Del-Valle-Camacho argued that guideline-accounted factors cannot support a variance. The panel responded with the circuit’s settled approach (as stated in Rivera-Berríos): overlap is permissible if the judge explains why the case is not ordinary or why the factor deserves extra weight.
5. Conclude the magnitude is defensible by comparison to prior affirmed variances. Citing multiple cases where ammunition and magazines supported upward variances—sometimes larger than this one—the panel determined the 19-month variance was within the permissible range of sentencing discretion.

Notably, the panel did not need to decide whether Del-Valle-Camacho’s firearm possession “while on escape status” furnished an additional, independent variance rationale because the ammunition and magazine facts were “independently sufficient” (per United States v. Mercado-Cañizares). Still, the opinion’s discussion (including U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4(c)) signals that guideline “grouping” mechanics can sometimes prevent additional counts from raising the offense level, leaving judges to address overall culpability through selection of a point within the range—or through variance where justified.

C. Impact

The decision’s likely effects are practical and immediate in First Circuit firearms sentencing:

• Ammunition and magazine quantity remains a powerful variance lever under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. Del-Valle-Camacho consolidates the message from Polaco-Hance, Morales-Vélez, Mercado-Cañizares, and related cases: large ammunition quantities and multiple/extended magazines can move a case outside the guideline heartland and justify upward variances, especially where no specific guideline enhancement captures the quantity.
• “Fair inference” from the record reduces reversal risk when judges consistently identify aggravating facts. The panel reaffirmed that an explanation need not follow a rigid format; repeated references during the hearing can suffice. This may encourage sentencing judges to build a clear record throughout the colloquy, not merely at the moment of pronouncement.
• Defense counsel preservation is critical. The case illustrates how a general objection to the sentence (without specifying the procedural defect) triggers plain error review and makes procedural reversals far less likely.
• Statistical “average sentence” arguments may carry limited weight without apples-to-apples comparators. The district judge’s response—that averages under § 2K2.1 may not reflect cases involving altered firearms and unusually large ammunition supplies—signals skepticism toward generic data unmoored from salient aggravating features.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Guideline range: The advisory sentencing range produced by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines based on offense level and criminal history. Here, it was 33–41 months.
• Upward variance: A sentence above the guideline range based on the judge’s application of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors (as opposed to a technical “departure” mechanism within the Guidelines).
• Procedural vs. substantive reasonableness: Procedural reasonableness asks whether the court followed the right process (correct range, proper consideration of factors, adequate explanation). Substantive reasonableness asks whether the length of the sentence is defensible given the reasons.
• Plain error review: A demanding appellate standard applied when an issue was not properly preserved in the district court; the defendant must show a clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights and the integrity of proceedings.
• “Heartland” / “mine-run” case: A typical case contemplated by a guideline. Facts that make a case unusually dangerous or atypical (such as unusually large ammunition quantities) can justify treating it as outside the heartland.
• High-capacity/extended magazines: Magazines that hold more rounds than standard capacity, often treated as aggravating because they can enable sustained firing without reloading.
• Grouping under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4(c): A guideline method for combining multiple counts. If one count is much less serious (lower offense level) than another, it may not increase the combined offense level—sometimes leaving sentencing courts to address overall conduct through where they land within the range or by variance (when legally justified).

5. Conclusion

United States v. Del-Valle-Camacho reinforces a durable First Circuit principle in firearms sentencing: where U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 does not meaningfully account for an unusually large ammunition cache and multiple (including high-capacity) magazines, those facts can independently justify an upward variance—so long as the sentencing record makes clear why the case is not an “average” guideline case and how the variance serves § 3553(a)’s objectives. The opinion also serves as a procedural cautionary tale: absent a specific contemporaneous objection, appellate review of sentencing explanation is constrained by the formidable plain-error standard.