Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02368/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02368-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alexsis J. Garcia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 14‐2368

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

ALEXSIS J. GARCIA, A/K/A

ALEXIS JAMES GARCIA,

Defendant‐Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Illinois.

No. 13 CR 40097 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED APRIL 22, 2015 — DECIDED OCTOBER 29, 2015

____________________

Before POSNER, KANNE, Circuit Judges, and DARRAH, Dis‐

trict Judge.



DARRAH, District Judge. This is a direct appeal of a crimi‐

nal sentence against defendant‐appellant Alexsis J. Garcia

(“Garcia”). Pursuant to an open plea agreement, Garcia pled

                                                   Of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Case: 14-2368 Document: 46 Filed: 10/29/2015 Pages: 5
2 No. 14‐2368

guilty to two counts of distribution of heroin in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).  

The district court found that Garcia had a Criminal His‐

tory Category of V and a total offense level of 19, which led

to a guideline range of 57 to 71 months. The Government

recommended a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment. The

Government argued that Garcia’s criminal history was al‐

most that of a career offender and that Garcia should be sen‐

tenced between the guideline range of 57 to 71 months and

the career offender guideline range of approximately 151 to

188 months. Garcia’s counsel recommended a sentence at the

low end of the range, 57 months, and argued that Garcia’s

traumatic childhood and his acceptance of Christianity were

strong factors in mitigation. Defendant also made a state‐

ment in allocution that addressed both of those mitigating

factors.

The district court sentenced Garcia to 108 months in pris‐

on. In addition, the district court imposed three years of su‐

pervised release without any consideration of the § 3553(a)

sentencing factors.

Garcia presents three issues on appeal. First, Garcia ar‐

gues that the district court did not offer a sufficiently com‐

pelling justification for imposing a sentence above the guide‐

line range. Second, Garcia argues that the district court

committed a procedural error when it stated that it intended

to impose a sentence that was 27 months above the high end

of the 57 to 71 month guideline range, but then imposed a

sentence of 108 months’ imprisonment, 37 months above the

high end of the guideline range. Finally, Garcia argues that

the district court erred by imposing discretionary supervised

Case: 14-2368 Document: 46 Filed: 10/29/2015 Pages: 5
No. 14‐2368 3

release conditions without making any 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)

findings to support them.

A district court’s sentence is reviewed under an abuse‐of‐

discretion standard, regardless of whether that sentence is

imposed inside or outside the Guidelines range. Gall v. Unit‐

ed States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). An above‐range sentence is

upheld so long as the district court applied the factors in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) and adequately explains why the penalty is

appropriate. See United States v. Hill, 645 F.3d 900, 911 (7th

Cir. 2011); United States v. Courtland, 642 F.3d 545, 550–51 (7th

Cir. 2011).

The district court reasonably determined that previous

incarcerations had not deterred Garcia from committing se‐

rious crimes and that an above‐the‐range sentence was nec‐

essary to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B)‐(C).

The court also noted that Garcia remained drug free and

helped people while he was imprisoned but had failed to do

so when released. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D). Further, the

court specifically found that the factors in aggravation out‐

weighed the factors in mitigation. The district court applied

the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and adequately explained

why an above‐the‐range penalty is appropriate.

The Government has conceded that the case must be re‐

manded for a new sentencing hearing on the imposition of

the conditions for supervised release. “[S]entencing judges

should impose conditions of supervised release which are (a)

appropriately tailored to the defendantʹs offense, personal

history and characteristics; (b) involve no greater deprivation

of liberty than is reasonably necessary to achieve the goals of

deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation; and

(c) sufficiently specific to place the defendant on notice of

Case: 14-2368 Document: 46 Filed: 10/29/2015 Pages: 5
4 No. 14‐2368

what is expected.” United States v. Parrish Kappes, 782 F.3d

828, 847–48 (7th Cir. 2015). Further, “a sentencing court must

justify the conditions and the length of the term at sentenc‐

ing by an adequate statement of reasons, reasonably related

to the applicable § 3553(a) factors.” Id. at 845 (citing United

States v. Bryant, 754 F.3d 443, 445 (7th Cir. 2014)).

In this instance, the district court made no statement of

reasons justifying the non‐mandatory conditions of super‐

vised release or the length of the term of supervised release.

Therefore, the case must be remanded to the district court

for resentencing and a statement of reasons in justification of

the length and conditions of supervised release.

Garcia also argues that the district court committed a

procedural error by imposing a 108 month sentence but also

stating that the sentence would be 27 months above the high

end of the guideline range, which would have resulted in a

sentence of 98 months. Procedural errors include: “failing to

calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,

treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the

§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erro‐

neous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sen‐

tence—including an explanation for any deviation from the

Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. When imposing the

sentence, the district court stated:

The Court, having considered all the infor‐

mation of the presentence report, including

guideline computations and factors set forth in

18 USC 3553(a), pursuant to [the] Sentencing

Reform Act of 1984, it is the judgment of this

Court that the defendant, Alexsis James Garcia

is hereby committed to the custody of the Bu‐

Case: 14-2368 Document: 46 Filed: 10/29/2015 Pages: 5
No. 14‐2368 5

reau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of

108 months on each count to be served concur‐

rently. That’s 27 months, a little over two years

above the high end of the guideline range,

which the Court, in balancing the aggravation

and mitigation, feels that that’s  ‐‐  a 27‐month

above the guideline is appropriate.

Sent. Tr. at 18–19. The written judgment stated that Garcia

was sentenced to 108 months on Counts 1 and 2 of the in‐

dictment, the sentences to run concurrently. The district

court committed a procedural error by imposing a sentence

that was 37 months above the guideline range.

Usually, if the oral and written sentences are in conflict,

the oral pronouncement controls. United States v. Daddino, 5

F.3d 262, 266 (7th Cir. 1993). “This rule can only prevail,

however, if the oral language is unambiguous.” Id. It would

be permissible to determine that the written judgement and

commitment order controls. See United States v. Bonanno, 146

F.3d 502, 511 (7th Cir. 1998). In this case, however, the district

court on remand will be afforded an opportunity to sentence

anew and assure there is no conflict.

It is therefore ORDERED that the case is remanded for

resentencing. This will further provide the district court an

opportunity to give clear justification for the length and

conditions of supervised release and clarify its ruling as to

the length of Garcia’s sentence.

Case: 14-2368 Document: 46 Filed: 10/29/2015 Pages: 5