Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-02246/USCOURTS-ca3-09-02246-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Oquendo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2246

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JUAN OQUENDO

Appellant 

___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 1-08-cr-00363-001)

District Judge: The Honorable William W. Caldwell

___________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 20, 2010

BEFORE: FUENTES, HARDIMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: June 2, 2010)

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

Case: 09-2246 Document: 003110167069 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2010
2

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Since this opinion is wholly without precedential value we write solely for the

benefit of the parties, who are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case,

in order to explain why we will affirm.

While Oquendo was serving a sentence in a state prison, he sent a letter to a

federal judge threatening to kill him. He pleaded guilty to threatening a United States

official with intent to impede the performance of his duties in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§115(a)(1)(B). The District Court sentenced him to 77 months in prison, the bottom-end

of the career offender guideline range. The District Court also sentenced him to two

years of supervised release and assessed him $100. 

Oquendo appeals his sentence, claiming that the District Court failed to

meaningfully consider relevant factors under 18 USC §3553(a). We disagree. The

premise of Oquendo’s argument is that the District Court must discuss, on the record,

each factor enumerated in Section 3553(a). In this vein, he asserts that the District Court

failed to consider his childhood abuse or his mental health issues in sentencing him. 

None of these issues were explicitly raised by counsel at sentencing as a basis for either a

variance or a downward departure. Nonetheless, our review of the record makes it clear

that his tragic history was detailed in the presentence report. Based upon the comments

of the District Court at sentencing, which specifically referred to both his history and his

need for mental health care, we are satisfied that the District Court knew of these facts

Case: 09-2246 Document: 003110167069 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2010
3

and gave appropriate, reasonable attention to them. United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d

558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009). 

Similarly, Oquendo’s assertions that the District Court gave cursory review to

issues that were explicitly raised as bases for mitigation of the sentence also fall flat. 

First, we find it patently absurd to attempt to portray a letter making multiple, explicit

threats of death as something less than a crime of violence. Second, the court plainly

referenced Oquendo’s long criminal history, which included juvenile offenses. 

Nonetheless, the record makes clear that his adult criminal history, by itself, is more than

sufficient to categorize Oquendo as a career offender. Finally, Oquendo asserts that the

District Court ignored his request for leniency, which was based upon the combined

length of his prior sentence and a sentence within the career offender guideline range. 

The record reflects that the District Court considered the severity of the sentence, but

found that it was justified for numerous reasons, including deterrence against a

continuation of an entrenched pattern of criminal conduct. We note that the District

Court did evince some sensitivity to this issue by sentencing Oquendo to the low end of

the career offender guideline range. 

For all of these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment of conviction

and sentence. 

Case: 09-2246 Document: 003110167069 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/02/2010