Does a federal judge's increased sentence targeting a Puerto Rico defendant for higher punishment violate constitutional, statutory, and guidelines prohibitions against sentencing discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, and economic status?

QUESTION PRESENTED In the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, federal authorities prosecute an elevated number of general jurisdiction offenses, like unlawful gun possession, in federal court. Those prosecutorial choices mean federal judges see a significantly elevated number of non-violent gun possession cases in the District of Puerto Rico. At the urging of U.S. prosecutors, some federal judges have fixated on a misapprehension about such nonviolent offenses. They've come to believe simple gun possession is a more sinister and dangerous crime in Puerto Rico than anywhere else in the Nation. This belief is expressed, as it was here, with more severe sentences and unsupportable statements that either certain firearm features demand extra punishment or the population’s features justify such severity. The First Circuit, here, noted that the sentencing judge “may have lingered longer than necessary on” Puerto Rico’s “community characteristics,” and “gun accuracy” rhetoric. On review, however, the First Circuit affirmed under United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013). FloresMachicote allows reviewing panels to label Puerto sentences as mere “unnecessary rhetorical flourishes” and population comments as “community-based and geographic factors.” The question presented is: Does a federal judge’s increased sentence targeting a Puerto Rico defendant for higher punishment violate constitutional, statutory, and guidelines prohibitions against sentencing discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, and economic status? i PARTIES Félix Vega-La Torres, petitioner on review, was the defendant-appellant below. The United States of America, respondent on review, was the plaintiff-appellee below.