Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02718/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02718-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Joaquin Urcino
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 31, 2010

Decided April 1, 2010

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 09-2718

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOAQUIN URCINO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 08 CR 671-1

Ruben Castillo,

Judge.

O R D E R

After a three-day trial, a jury found Joaquin Urcino guilty of being a felon in

possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the district court sentenced him below

the guidelines range to 96 months in prison. Urcino filed a notice of appeal, but his

appointed counsel now seeks to withdraw because he cannot identify any nonfrivolous

ground for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Because Urcino has not

submitted a response to counsel’s motion, see CIR. R. 51(b), we confine our review to the

potential issues identified in counsel's facially adequate brief, see United States v. Schuh, 289

F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir. 2002). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-2718 Document: 17 Filed: 04/01/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09-2718 Page 2

The charge arose out of a turf-war altercation that broke out in Chicago between

Urcino, a gangmember, and members of a rival gang. Urcino, who had been traveling with

his girlfriend along territorial borders, was accosted by the gang members. He pulled a

gun out of a bag his girlfriend was carrying for him and pointed it at them. As the police

arrived, Urcino put the gun back into his girlfriend’s bag and then went in a separate

direction. One officer eventually apprehended Urcino, while another stopped the

girlfriend, who was found with the gun inside her bag. The government called as

witnesses, among others, Urcino’s girlfriend, the two police officers, and two eyewitnesses. 

Contrary to their depiction of events, Urcino testified that he did not have a gun, but that

he had brandished his silver mobile phone as if it were a gun to scare away the gang rivals. 

Counsel considers whether Urcino could argue that there was insufficient evidence

to support a finding of guilt. We would view the evidence in the light most favorable to

the government and uphold a conviction unless there is no evidence in the record from

which a jury could have found Urcino guilty. United States v. Moses, 513 F.3d 727, 733 (7th

Cir. 2008); United States v. Morris, 349 F.3d 1009, 1013 (7th Cir. 2003). For a conviction under

§ 922(g)(1), the government must prove (1) the defendant had a previous felony conviction,

(2) the defendant possessed a firearm, and (3) the firearm traveled in or affected interstate

commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); Morris, 349 F.3d at 1013. Because Urcino stipulated to the

first and third elements, the government needed to prove only that Urcino possessed the

recovered gun. At trial, the government established Urcino’s gun possession through the

testimony of one eyewitnesses, one police officer, and Urcino’s girlfriend. We agree with

counsel that this evidence would be more than sufficient for a reasonable jury to find

Urcino guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Counsel also considers whether Urcino could challenge the reasonableness of the

district court's decision to sentence him to 96 months—24 months below the recommended

120-month guidelines range. We agree that any such challenge would be frivolous. The

district court correctly calculated Urcino’s final offense level to be 26 and his criminal

history category to be VI, resulting in a recommended 120-150 month range. Because the

statutory maximum of 120 months equaled the bottom of the guidelines range, 120 months

became the recommended sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c). We would presume that a

sentence falling within a properly calculated guidelines range is reasonable, United States v.

Panaigua-Verdugo, 537 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 2008), and a below-guidelines sentence will

almost never be unreasonable, United States v. George, 403 F.3d 470, 473 (7th Cir. 2005). 

Moreover the record shows that the court considered the factors under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)—including the seriousness of the offense in light of the fact that even though

Urcino was in possession of a gun, there was no hard evidence he would have used it—as

well as credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(1) for time spent in state custody.

We therefore GRANT the motion to withdraw and DISMISS Urcino’s appeal. 

Case: 09-2718 Document: 17 Filed: 04/01/2010 Pages: 2