The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a 96-month federal prison sentence for Onic Maldonado-Velazquez, who was convicted of possessing machine guns and being a felon in possession of firearms. In *United States v. Maldonado-Velazquez* (1st Cir. 2026), the appellate court rejected the defendant's challenge to an 18-month upward variance from federal sentencing guidelines.
The case began in September 2022 when police in Puerto Rico received a tip from a confidential source that Maldonado was armed on the roof of a public housing building. When officers arrived and announced their presence, Maldonado jumped off the roof to avoid arrest. Officers found him injured on the ground, where he admitted to having three firearms on the roof.
The subsequent search revealed a substantial weapons cache. Officers discovered two Glock firearms modified to shoot automatically, a tactical rifle, a micro conversion kit, three standard magazines, seven high-capacity magazines, and 279 rounds of assorted caliber ammunition. At the time of his arrest, Maldonado was already serving a term of supervised release from a previous conviction.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, presided over by Judge Francisco A. Besosa, sentenced Maldonado to 96 months in federal prison. This represented an 18-month upward variance from the recommended sentencing guidelines range. Maldonado appealed the sentence, arguing it was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
On appeal, Maldonado contended that the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons for the upward variance. He argued that the sentence was not based on a plausible sentencing rationale and that the court did not properly weigh mitigating factors concerning his personal characteristics. The defense was represented by José R. Gaztambide-Añeses.
The government's response was handled by U.S. Attorney W. Stephen Muldrow, along with Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Chief of the Appellate Division, and Julia M. Meconiates.
Circuit Judge Dunlap, writing for a three-judge panel that also included Circuit Judges Montecalvo and Aframe, rejected Maldonado's arguments. The court concluded that the district court did not err in its sentencing decision and provided adequate justification for the enhanced sentence.
The First Circuit's affirmation of the sentence reflects the serious nature of federal machine gun possession charges. Federal law severely restricts the possession of automatic weapons, and violations carry substantial penalties. The case demonstrates how courts view defendants who possess multiple modified firearms along with substantial ammunition supplies, particularly when they have prior criminal histories.
The upward variance in this case reflects several aggravating factors that likely influenced the sentencing court's decision. The presence of multiple modified automatic weapons, the large quantity of ammunition, and Maldonado's status as a repeat offender under supervised release all contributed to the enhanced sentence.
Machine gun possession cases have become increasingly significant in federal criminal law as law enforcement agencies focus on removing automatic weapons from circulation. The modification of commercially available firearms to fire automatically, often through conversion kits like the one found in this case, has become a particular concern for federal prosecutors.
The case also highlights the intersection of federal firearms laws with supervised release violations. When defendants commit new offenses while under court supervision, judges often view this as evidence of disregard for the law that justifies enhanced penalties.
The First Circuit's decision in *Maldonado-Velazquez* reinforces that appellate courts will generally defer to district court sentencing decisions when they are adequately explained and fall within reasonable bounds. Courts of appeals review sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion, giving trial judges considerable latitude in crafting appropriate sentences within statutory limits.
For defendants facing similar charges, the case serves as a reminder that federal firearms offenses, particularly those involving automatic weapons, carry serious consequences. The combination of machine gun possession and felon-in-possession charges creates exposure to substantial prison terms, especially for defendants with criminal histories.
The opinion, issued January 16, 2026, adds to First Circuit precedent on federal sentencing practices in firearms cases. While the full text of the opinion was not available in the court filing, the affirmation suggests the appellate court found the district court's reasoning sufficient to support the enhanced sentence.
Maldonado's case demonstrates the federal justice system's approach to repeat firearms offenders and those who possess particularly dangerous weapons. The 96-month sentence, equivalent to eight years in federal prison, reflects both the severity of the charges and the defendant's criminal history as factors warranting enhanced punishment beyond standard guideline ranges.