Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02193/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02193-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Felipe Zamora
Appellant

Document Text:

In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

Nos. 15‐2193, ‐2762

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

FELIPE ZAMORA and SAMUEL GUTIERREZ,

Defendants‐Appellants.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Nos. 08 CR 746‐10, ‐18 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge.

____________________

SUBMITTED AUGUST 18, 2016 — DECIDED AUGUST 26, 2016

____________________

Before POSNER, EASTERBROOK, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge. In 2009 the defendants, Zamora

and Gutierrez, high‐ranking members of the Latin Kings

street gang, were charged with a variety of federal crimes.

Zamora pleaded guilty to participating in both a racketeer‐

ing conspiracy and a conspiracy to extort money from “mi‐

queros,” who specialize in providing identification docu‐

ments to unauthorized aliens. Gutierrez pleaded guilty to

participating in the racketeering conspiracy and to pos‐

Case: 15-2193 Document: 47 Filed: 08/26/2016 Pages: 6
2 Nos. 15‐2193, ‐2762

sessing an illegal drug with intent to distribute it. At sen‐

tencing the district judge credited Zamora with acceptance

of responsibility, but in sentencing him to 240 months in

prison failed to indicate what Zamora’s guidelines range

was. The court imposed a 3‐year term of supervised release

with all the standard conditions of supervised release plus

two special conditions, one requiring Zamora to participate

in an approved job‐skill training program and the other re‐

quiring him to perform at least 20 hours of community ser‐

vice weekly if he was unemployed.

At Gutierrez’s sentencing, which took place a month af‐

ter Zamora’s, the judge refused to credit him with ac‐

ceptance of responsibility, on the ground that unlike his

codefendant he had fallen “substantially short of accepting

responsibility factually for what occurred: what he did and

what was foreseeable to him, and which was part of the dai‐

ly activities, as it were, of this—of the gang itself.” His ac‐

ceptance of responsibility, the judge said, was directed “to

his family and friends” and “totally ignores the other victims

of the activities carried out” by the Latin Kings. The judge

calculated Gutierrez’s guidelines range at 210 to 262 months,

and sentenced him at the bottom of the range, while also

imposing a 4‐year term of supervised release with all the

standard conditions plus special conditions requiring

Gutierrez to undergo a mental‐health evaluation, participate

in a mental‐health treatment program, take steps to obtain a

GED, and if unemployed perform community service.

The defendants appealed, and in United States v. Garcia,

754 F.3d 460, 483–87 (7th Cir. 2014), we vacated their sen‐

tences—Zamora’s for the judge’s failure to calculate his

guidelines range or justify what appeared to be an above‐

Case: 15-2193 Document: 47 Filed: 08/26/2016 Pages: 6
Nos. 15‐2193, ‐2762 3

guidelines sentence, Gutierrez’s for lack of an adequate ex‐

planation by the judge for deciding to deny Gutierrez ac‐

ceptance of responsibility; and so we remanded for resen‐

tencing of both defendants.

On remand the district judge commended Zamora for

good behavior in prison and for showing genuine remorse

for his activities as a high‐ranking Latin King; calculated a

guidelines imprisonment range of 168 to 210 months; im‐

posed a prison sentence of 200 months; and reimposed the

term and conditions of supervised release that he had im‐

posed before. Gutierrez in his sentencing memorandum ex‐

plained that heʹd tried to “better himself” in prison by, for

example, completing “numerous classes and programs,”

working as a cook in the prison kitchen, participating in vo‐

cational training as a cabinetmaker, and helping to train oth‐

er inmates in masonry and carpentry. At his resentencing

hearing he again apologized for belonging to the Latin

Kings, but this time his apology was “to the Court,” his

family, and “also to the community.” On the basis of his

statement, the government recommended that he receive

credit for acceptance of responsibility, which would reduce

his guidelines range from 210 to 262 months to 151 to 188

months. After questioning Gutierrez at length concerning his

activities as a Latin King, the judge, while not calculating a

guidelines range, did reduce his sentence from 210 to 188

months, with “all other aspects of the [original] judgment ...

[to] remain in effect.”

The defendants have again appealed. Both challenge the

conditions of supervised release, pointing out that the judge

failed to give advance notice that he was considering impos‐

ing (as he did) discretionary conditions (that is, conditions

Case: 15-2193 Document: 47 Filed: 08/26/2016 Pages: 6
4 Nos. 15‐2193, ‐2762

other than the standard and special conditions that the judge

also imposed), that some of the conditions he did impose we

have deemed overbroad and overly vague in previous deci‐

sions, and that he failed to determine the compatibility of the

conditions he was imposing with the statutory sentencing

factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), or to state the conditions orally.

All these were errors, which have persuaded the govern‐

ment—and persuade us—that the sentences of the defend‐

ants must again be vacated and the cases again remanded

for the full resentencing that the defendants should have re‐

ceived after our previous remand but did not. See, e.g., Unit‐

ed States v. Poulin, 809 F.3d 924, 931–34 (7th Cir. 2016); United

States v. Harper, 805 F.3d 818, 822 (7th Cir. 2015); United States

v. Sandidge, 784 F.3d 1055, 1067–69 (7th Cir. 2015); Unit‐

ed States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828, 842–52, 862–63 (7th Cir.

2015); United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368, 373, 375–77,

379–81 (7th Cir. 2015).

As explained in United States v. Mobley, No. 15‐2255, 2016

WL 4275821 (7th Cir. Aug. 15, 2016), at *3, “Because a crimi‐

nal sentence is normally a package that includes several

component parts (term of imprisonment, fine, restitution,

special assessment, supervised release), when one part of the

package is disturbed, we prefer to give the district court the

opportunity to reconsider the sentence as a whole so as to

‘effectuate its sentencing intent.’ Pepper v. United States, 562

U.S. 476, 507 (2011). Vacating the sentence and returning the

case to the district court for imposition of a new sentence al‐

lows the district court to ‘reconfigure the sentencing plan’ so

as to ‘satisfy the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).’

Id.” See also United States v. Barnes, 660 F.3d 1000, 1007 (7th

Cir. 2011), where we explained that a full resentencing al‐

Case: 15-2193 Document: 47 Filed: 08/26/2016 Pages: 6
Nos. 15‐2193, ‐2762 5

lows the district court to “unbundle the sentencing pack‐

age.”

With regard to Gutierrez the judge committed an addi‐

tional error by failing to calculate his guidelines range (one

of the errors, the reader will recall, that caused us to order

Zamora resentenced). Furthermore, though we instructed

the judge to reconsider on remand his ruling that Gutierrez

had not accepted responsibility for the crimes he’d pleaded

guilty to, we can’t tell from the sentencing transcript how the

issue of acceptance of responsibility was resolved. It is true

that Gutierrez’s new sentence—188 months—would be the

top of the guidelines range recommended by the defense

and the government, reflecting the deduction of three of‐

fense levels for acceptance of responsibility. But the judge’s

extended colloquy concerning Gutierrez’s activities as a

member of the Latin Kings and apparent dissatisfaction with

Gutierrez’s answers are consistent with the judge’s having

reduced his sentence not because he’d accepted responsibil‐

ity for his crime but because like Zamora he’d behaved well

in prison. Pepper v. United States, supra, 562 U.S. at 490–93.

But thatʹs just a guess; for in contrast to his treatment of Za‐

mora, the judge did not mention Gutierrez’s good behavior

in prison, did not mention any of the section 3553(a) sentenc‐

ing factors, and did not explain why, assuming he was sub

silentio crediting Gutierrez with accepting responsibility, he

nevertheless thought that unlike Zamora Gutierrez deserved

to be sentenced at the high end of the applicable guidelines

range. (This assumes that the judge agreed with the litigants’

guidelines calculation.)

Given that both defendants were entitled to a full resen‐

tencing after their successful first appeals, 18 U.S.C.

Case: 15-2193 Document: 47 Filed: 08/26/2016 Pages: 6
6 Nos. 15‐2193, ‐2762

§ 3742(g), and instead received cursory treatment by the

judge, and that the government does not contest Gutierrez’s

request that a different judge conduct his sentencing hearing

on remand, we order that Gutierrez’s third sentencing hear‐

ing be conducted before a different judge. See 7th Cir. R. 36.

The defendants’ sentences are vacated and both cases are

remanded for resentencing.

Case: 15-2193 Document: 47 Filed: 08/26/2016 Pages: 6