Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02107/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02107-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos Alvarez Hernandez
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2107

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

Carlos Alvarez Hernandez, also known *

as Carlos Juan Sanchez Hernandez, * 

also known as Juan Carlos Sanchez * 

Hernandez, * 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 14, 2008

Filed: March 10, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and GRITZNER,1

 District Judge.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Carlos Hernandez pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possessing

more than 50 grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21

Appellate Case: 07-2107 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2008 Entry ID: 3410972
2

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The district court2

 sentenced Hernandez to 121

months' imprisonment. Hernandez appeals the sentence as unreasonable. We affirm.

I. Background

Minnesota law enforcement officers arrested an individual for possession of

crystal methamphetamine. The arrestee subsequently became a confidential informant

(CI) and agreed to contact his drug source to set up a controlled purchase of

methamphetamine. The CI telephoned his source, "El Don," and requested one pound

of methamphetamine. El Don agreed to deliver the requested drugs to the CI. After

waiting, the CI called El Don again to check on the progress of the delivery, and El

Don informed the CI that he had sent a drug courier. Shortly thereafter, Carlos

Hernandez—the appellant—arrived at the designated delivery location carrying a

plastic bag containing one pound of crystal methamphetamine.

Hernandez was arrested and charged with possessing more than 50 grams of

methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(B). Hernandez pleaded guilty to the charge, pursuant to a plea agreement that

anticipated a possible Guidelines range of 121 to 151 months' imprisonment.

Hernandez's presentence investigation report (PSR) calculated the same Guidelines

range as the parties' plea agreement.

At sentencing, the district court adopted the PSR's 121 to 151 months

Guidelines range and sentenced Hernandez to 121 months' imprisonment. In imposing

this sentence, the district court stated:

In determining what sentence to impose I have carefully considered all

of the factors described in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), I have started with and

I have given substantial weight to the United States Sentencing

Appellate Case: 07-2107 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2008 Entry ID: 3410972
-3-

Guidelines and the policy statements issued by the United States

Sentencing Commission.

I recognize that under United States v. Booker those guidelines and

statements are not binding on me, but are instead effectively advisory.

At the same time the guidelines must be considered under 3553(a)(4) and

the statements must be considered under 3553(a)(5). Giving weight to

the guidelines and statements also furthers the goal of 3553(a)(6) to

avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar

records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.

In addition to considering the sentencing guidelines and policy

statements, I have also considered the other factors described in 3553(a),

including the need for the sentence to be sufficient but not greater than

necessary to comply with the purposes set forth in 3553(a)(2).

I find that the sentence imposed on Mr. Hernandez is reasonable in light

of the factors described in 3553(a), including the nature of the offense,

the history and characteristics of the Defendant, the need to promote

respect for the laws of the United States, the need to deter similar

conduct in the future by Mr. Hernandez and others, and the need to

provide a just sentence that is similar to the sentences received by

defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar

conduct.

I also note that this sentence is within the range recommended by the

sentencing guidelines. None of the 3553(a) factors persuades this Court

that a sentence outside of the guidelines is warranted. There is nothing

particularly unusual about the circumstances of this case that would take

it outside of the guidelines range.

Sent. Tr. at 13–14.

Hernandez appeals, arguing that his sentence was unreasonable because the

district court did not adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and that the

Appellate Case: 07-2107 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/10/2008 Entry ID: 3410972
-4-

court erroneously applied a presumption of reasonableness to his Guidelines range in

determining his sentence. 

II. Discussion

"We review a challenge to the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of

discretion." United States v. Jones, 509 F.3d 911, 913 (8th Cir. 2007). A sentencing

court abuses its discretion "when it fails to consider a relevant factor, gives significant

weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or considers only appropriate factors but

nevertheless commits a clear error of judgment by arriving at a sentence that lies

outside the limited range of choice dictated by the facts of the case." Id. (citing United

States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005)).

A district court's first step in sentencing proceedings is to correctly calculate the

defendant's Guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596

(2007) (citation omitted). "[T]he Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial

benchmark," but they are not the only consideration. Id. "[A]fter giving both parties

an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate, the district

judge should then consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they

support the sentence requested by a party." Id. In doing so, however, the district court

"may not presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable." Id. (citing Rita v. United

States, 551 U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2465 (2007) (stating that appellate courts may

apply a presumption of reasonableness to a within-Guidelines sentence, but the

presumption does not apply to sentencing courts)). Rather, the district court "must

make an individualized assessment" of the case "based on the facts presented." Id.

After the court determines an appropriate sentence, it "must adequately explain

the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the

perception of fair sentencing. Id. In explaining the sentence imposed, however, the

sentencing court does not have to "categorically rehearse" each of the § 3553(a)

factors on the record as long as it is clear that the court considered those factors.

Appellate Case: 07-2107 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/10/2008 Entry ID: 3410972
-5-

Jones, 509 F.3d at 915 (quoting United States v. Dieken, 432 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir.

2006)). 

The district court considered the § 3553(a) factors in imposing Hernandez's

sentence. The court expressly stated that it had considered "all of the factors described

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)," specifically cited to several of § 3553(a)'s subsections, and

referenced the objectives of several other subsections. "If a district court adverts to

some of the considerations contained in § 3553(a), we have been satisfied that the

[sentencing] court . . . was aware of the entire contents of the relevant statute." Jones,

509 F.3d at 915 (internal quotations and citations omitted, alterations in original).

Because the sentencing transcript makes clear that the court properly considered the

§ 3553(a) factors, we reject Hernandez's argument that his sentence was unreasonable

because the district court did not adequately consider those factors.

Hernandez also contends that the district court erroneously applied a

presumption of reasonableness to the Guidelines range in imposing his sentence.

Hernandez cites to the court's statement at sentencing that it gave "substantial weight"

to the Guidelines. We find no error in the court's imposition of Hernandez's sentence.

The court properly calculated Hernandez's Guidelines range, acknowledged that

the range was advisory, and considered the Guidelines and policy statements of the

Sentencing Commission along with the § 3553(a) factors, concluding that under the

facts of the case the sentence imposed—which was at the low end of Hernandez's

Guidelines range—was reasonable in light of § 3553(a). The court applied no

impermissible presumption of reasonableness to the Guidelines range, and the

sentence imposed was reasonable.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2107 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/10/2008 Entry ID: 3410972