United States Court of Appeals
                        For the First Circuit


Nos. 23-1204, 23-1205

                           UNITED STATES,

                              Appellee,

                                 v.

                 KALEL JORELL MARTÍNEZ-BRISTOL,

                        Defendant, Appellant.


         APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

       [Hon. Aida M. Delgado-Colón, U.S. District Judge]


                               Before

         Gelpí, Lynch, and Montecalvo, Circuit Judges.


     Raymond Sánchez Maceira on brief for appellant.
     Gregory B. Conner, Assistant United States Attorney, W.
Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, and Mariana E. Bauzá
Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate
Division, on brief for appellee.


                            April 1, 2025
           LYNCH, Circuit Judge.         In these consolidated appeals,

Kalel Martínez-Bristol challenges his 46-month sentence imposed in

2023 after he pled guilty to possession of a firearm and the

15-month sentence imposed for violation of his supervised release

terms stemming from his conviction of a federal felony in 2011.

Martínez   has   waived   any   appeal    from   his   felon-in-possession

conviction and sentence by failing to brief those issues in this

court. As to the sentence for a grade A violation of his supervised

release, we hold there was no error.

                                    I.

           On June 24, 2021, Martínez was indicted by a federal

grand jury on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm

and ammunition in violation of 

(g)(1) and one count

of possession of a machinegun in violation of 

(o).

Because Martínez was on federal supervised release for a 2011 drug

conspiracy conviction, revocation proceedings were initiated.          The

two cases were consolidated before the judge who had heard his

2021 case.

           Martínez pled guilty to the new indictment as to the

felon-in-possession count on September 9, 2022.           Martínez in due

course received the presentence report on November 10, 2022.           The

report identified the firearm Martínez had been charged with

possessing as a pistol with "a visible machinegun conversion

device, commonly known as 'Chip[,'] attached to the rear of the


                                  - 2 -
slide."     The report also calculated Martínez's base offense level

as 22 because the offense involved a firearm that is described in

(a), which includes machineguns but not "a pistol

or a revolver having a rifled bore."1       See 

(a)(6),

(e).       Martínez did not object to the presentence report.          On

February 6, 2023, the district court sentenced Martínez to 46

months' imprisonment for his felon-in-possession conviction, the

low end of the guidelines range.2         During the sentencing hearing,

the    district   court   stated   that    Martínez's   offense   involved

possession of "one Glock pistol . . . that had a visible machinegun

conversion device, commonly known as a chip, that was attached to

the same."      The district court asked Martínez if the sections of




       1     The weapons identified in § 5845(a) include:
       (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18
       inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if
       such weapon as modified has an overall length of less
       than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18
       inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels
       of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from
       a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length
       of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less
       than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as
       defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any
       silencer . . . ; and (8) a destructive device.

(a).
       2  On March 27, 2024, on Martínez's motion, his sentence on
this conviction was reduced to 37 months' imprisonment based on
the retroactive application of a reduction in the relevant
guidelines range by the United States Sentencing Commission.


                                   - 3 -
the presentence report describing the offense were correct, and

Martínez responded that they were.

            As to the separate supervised release violation, the

government argued that because a machinegun was involved it was a

Grade A violation, which carried a guidelines sentence of 12-18

months, while Martínez argued for a Grade B violation, which

carried a guidelines sentence of 4-10 months.             Martínez's attorney

purported    to    express   surprise,    claiming       he   "was      under   the

impression that the Government was going to                   argue . . . that

[Martínez]   has    committed   a   grade   B     violation"      and    sought   a

continuance.       The district court granted the continuance and

scheduled the revocation hearing for three days later without any

objection from counsel.

            At the continued hearing three days later, Martínez

attempted to argue there was no evidence that the gun Martínez

possessed    was   a   machinegun   and   so    a   grade     A   violation     was

inappropriate.     The government pointed out that the description of

the gun as a machinegun was in the unobjected-to presentence report

in the 2021 criminal case.          In light of this disagreement, the

district court adjourned the hearing for an hour to permit the

government to present expert testimony about whether Martínez's

firearm met the definition of a machinegun.                 Before adjourning,

the district court presented Martínez with three options: to have

the   Government's     expert   testify     and     be   subject        to   cross-


                                    - 4 -
examination, to take the expert's testimony via proffer and subject

the expert to cross-examination, or to accept the Government's

proffer without cross-examining the expert.               Martínez chose the

second.

            The hearing resumed an hour later.                The government

proffer showed that an ATF special agent had performed a visual

review and "dry test" of Martínez's firearm and determined that

the pistol was a machinegun. The government then moved the agent's

report and photographs of the pistol into evidence.                   Martínez's

attorney acknowledged that he received those documents during

discovery    prior   to   the   guilty       plea   on   September 9,     2022,

approximately five months before the revocation hearing.

            The   district   court    then     asked     Martínez's    attorney

whether he wanted to cross-examine the Government's witness, but

Martínez's attorney declined, stating he was not ready to do so.

            The district court determined that Martínez committed a

Grade A violation and sentenced him to 15 months' imprisonment,

consecutive to Martínez's sentence in his 2021 case.3




     3    Martínez was released from incarceration in February
2025.   However, he is currently serving a term of supervised
release. Martínez "thus continues to have a stake in the outcome
of this appeal because 'if we were to determine that his
incarcerative sentence was unreasonable, he could seek equitable
relief."   See United States v. Delgado, 

, 191 n.2
(1st Cir. 2024) (quoting United States v. Reyes-Barreto, 

 (1st Cir. 2022)).


                                     - 5 -
                                  II.

           Martínez has not identified any error with or advanced

any argument as to his § 922(g)(1) conviction and sentence and so

has waived that issue.     See United States v. Crocco, 

 (1st Cir. 2021) ("[A]rguments[] not raised in his opening

brief[] are waived.").

           As to the revocation sentence, Martínez argues to us on

appeal, but did not argue before the district court, that his due

process and limited confrontation rights were violated.          At most,

then, our review of this issue would be for plain error.                See

United States v. Ruiz-Huertas, 

 (1st Cir. 2015).

We hold that there was no error at all.

           As we have made clear, Martínez had, and did not object

to, the evidence that the firearm at issue was a machinegun at

least five months before he attempted to raise the issue during

the supervised release revocation hearing.          Beyond that, trial

courts   have   "broad   discretion"    when   "ruling   on   motions   for

continuances."    United States v. Delgado-Marrero, 

 (1st Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).        "While that discretion is

limited by a defendant's constitutional rights to testimony by

defense witnesses and effective assistance of counsel, 'only an

unreasoning and arbitrary insistence upon expeditiousness in the

face of a justifiable request for delay violates the right to the




                                 - 6 -
assistance of counsel.'"   

 (citations omitted) (quoting United

States v. Maldonado, 

 (1st Cir. 2013)).

          Nor does Martínez even attempt to show that there was

any prejudice.   The government's evidence was more than sufficient

to establish the gun he had in his possession was a machinegun.

          We reject Martínez's appeals and affirm the judgments

below.




                               - 7 -