Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03059/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03059-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jose Angel Vasquez-Cardona
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3059

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District 

* of Minnesota. 

Jose Angel Vasquez-Cardona, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2006

Filed: March 17, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM. 

Jose Angel Vasquez-Cardona pled guilty to unlawful reentry after deportation,

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court1

 sentenced him to 57 months

imprisonment. Vasquez-Cardona appeals, asserting that the court erred by failing to

recognize its authority to vary or depart from the advisory guidelines and imposed an

unreasonable sentence. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 05-3059 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2006 Entry ID: 2022023
-2-

Vasquez-Cardona, a citizen of Mexico, was deported in 2004 based on his

conviction for third degree criminal sexual conduct. After illegally reentering the

United States and being arrested for driving under the influence, Vasquez-Cardona

pled guilty to unlawful reentry after deportation. The presentence report calculated

a guideline range of 57 to 71 months. Prior to sentencing, Vasquez-Cardona requested

a downward departure from the guidelines based on his cultural assimilation, his

familial motivation to return to this country, and disparities in sentences between

districts with fast track programs and those without them such as the District of

Minnesota. Vasquez-Cardona argued that something around 30 months would be a

reasonable sentence. The government opposed a departure on any theory and

recommended a sentence within the guideline range. 

At sentencing the district court chose not to depart on the basis of sentencing

disparity among districts "because it would amount to a judicial creation of a Fast

Track program in violation of both the PROTECT Act and the purposes of the

sentencing guidelines." The court also was not persuaded by appellant's other

arguments for a departure, noting that he had not had "a long period of law-abiding

behavior in this country" but rather had been "racking up eight criminal history

points". The court found "no reason in this case not to impose a guideline sentence"

and sentenced Vasquez-Cardona to a term of 57 months, the low point of the guideline

range. Vasquez-Cardona asserts that the case should be remanded for resentencing

because the district court erroneously believed that it lacked authority to vary or

depart from the guideline sentence based on the sentencing disparity resulting from

the fast track program.

Review of the sentencing transcript shows that the court understood its power

to depart but decided not to because it was Congress which had instituted fast track

programs after concluding that "the advantages stemming from fast-track programs

outweigh their disadvantages, and that any disparity that results from fast-track

programs is not 'unwarranted'", United States v. Sebastian, 436 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 05-3059 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2006 Entry ID: 2022023
-3-

2006) (quoting United States v. Perez-Chavez, No. 2:05-CR-00003PGC, 2005 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 9252, at *23 (D. Utah May 16, 2005)). Where a district court recognizes

its authority to depart downward, its discretionary decision not to do so is

unreviewable. See United States v. Frokjer, 415 F.3d 865, 875 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Vasquez-Cardona also argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the

court disregarded the mitigating factor of an unwarranted sentencing disparity and

imposed a sentence that does not promote respect for the law. See § 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a)(2)(A). Not only is Vasquez-Cardona's sentence presumptively reasonable

because it was within the 57 - 71 month guideline range, see United States v. Lincoln,

413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005), but it was at the low point of that range. The

district court discussed its reasons for not departing and concluded that a guideline

sentence was appropriate in this case. We conclude that the sentence is not

unreasonable. 

We therefore affirm the judgment. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3059 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/17/2006 Entry ID: 2022023