# United States Court of App eals F orth eSeve nt h Ci r c uit Chicago, Illin ois 60604 A rgued M ay 28, 20 09 D eci ded J uly17, 20 09 B efo re W IL L IA M J. B A U E R, Cir cu i tJudg e JO E L M . FL A U M , Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08- 2886 U N IT E D ST A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P la intif f-A pp ellee,
v. JU L IO O R T E G A -V A R G A S,

D ef endant-Appellant

. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe Easter n Dis tr i ct o f W i sc o ns i n . N o. 2: 07- cr- 0026 4- CN C-1 C h ar les N . C lev er t, Jr. , Judg e . O R D E R J uli o Orteg a- Varga s was co nvi cted o fi l l ega l l y r eente ring the U ni ted S tat es after bei ng deport ed subsequent to com m itt in g an ag gr avat ed fel ony, i n vi ol ati on o f 8 U. S
. C. §§ 1 3 2 6 ( a ) a nd ( b ) ( 2 ) , a nd s e nt e nc e d t o 5 3 mo nths ’ i mpr i s o nme nt
. He a pp e a l s h i s s e nt ence, w h ich w e a ffirm

. O rtega-V argas, a M ex ican citizen, i ll egally en tered the U nited States in 1988 as a teen ager. I n 1 9 9 3 , h e wa s c o n v i c t e d o fb a t t e r y f o r s e v e r e l y b e a t i n gh i s g i r l f r i e n d

. H e l a t e r b e a tth e s a me w o man, v i o l a t i ng a c o ur t o r de r t o a v o i d c o nt a c t wi th he r . Al s o i n 1 9 9 3 , he wa s f i ned fo r re si sti ng o r obs tr ucti ng an offi cer . I n 1998 , Orteg a- Varga s w as convi cted of diso rder l y c onduct and sentence d to 90 days in j ai l

. That sam e y ear, he was co nvi cted o n thr ee counts of 

### NO NPRE CE DE NT IAL D ISP OSIT ION To be c ited only

in acc ordanc e with Fe d. R. App. P. 32.1N o. 08

- 2886 Page 2

I t a pp ear s that Orteg a- Varga s m ay have provi ded hi s r ealnam e when he w as boo ked 1 at th e p olic e s ta tio n . m anufa cturing and del i ver i ng co cai ne. An im m igr ati on j ud ge or dered Ort ega - Varga s re m ove d fr om the U ni ted S tat es i n 199 9 be cause ofhi s drug tr affi cki ng co nvi cti ons. He w as re m ov ed to M ex ico in 2 00 0. I n 2002 , O rt ega - Varga s il l ega l l y ree nter ed the U ni ted Stat es. H e w as arr est ed i n N ove m ber 2003 i n con ne ction w ith a co n t r o ll ed narc otics pu rch ase an d i d en tified h im self as G abriel S. C u c iq u e, giv in g a fals e d at e o f birt h as w e ll. InM ay 20 04 , he w as co n vic te d in a W isc on sin 1 st at e co ur t o f po ss es si o n wi th i nt en t to del i ve r co ca i ne an d m ar ij ua na ; he was s en te nc ed to f o ur yea rs ’ i m pri sonm ent. The Bu re au of I m m i gr ati on and Custo m s En f or cem ent ( I CE ) knew of Orte ga- Varga s’ i denti ty and l oca ti on by2004 at the la tes t, bu t fo r som e r eas on di d not no ti fy the U ni ted S tat es A tto rney ’ s Offi ce o fh is return to the U ni ted S tat es unti l A ugust 2 007. In Octobe r 2007, Orteg a- Varga s was i nd i cted on a si ngl e count ofbei ng fo und in the U ni ted S tat es i n vi ol ati on of 8 U .S.C . § 13 26
. H e e ve n tu ally p lea d ed gu ilty

. Or te g a- Var g as made two mai n a r g um en ts at hi s se nt en cinghe ar i ngtha t al so f o r m the bas es fo r thi s a pp eal

. F i rs t, he c l ai m ed that i fthe gov er nm ent had notwait ed so l ong to pros ecute hi m , he c oul d have r equeste d, and m ay have re cei ved, a federa l sente nce that r an con c u rrentl y with hi s o ngoi ng st ate se ntence, wh i ch had concl ud ed by the t i m e he w as sente nced i n hi s federa l cas e. Orteg a- Varga s ar gued that he shoul d r ecei ve a r educed sentence b ec au se of th is los t o p p o r t u n ity
. H is s ec on d arg u m en t w as th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld consi der the d isp ari ty between se ntenci ng i n dis tr i cts w i th and w i thout so- cal l ed f ast
- tr ack prog ra m s f ori l leg al re entr y defendants wh o quick l y pl ead gui l ty and w ai ve cer tai n ri ghts (W iscons in d oes not hav e a fast-track p rogram ). A fter briefing and a hearing, the d istri ct cou rt rej ec te d bo th arg u m en ts for a red u c ed se n te n c e. On app eal, Orte ga- Varga s ac kn ow l edges that w e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s entence f or re as on ab len es s. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vaugh n , 43 3 F
. 3d 917, 92 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. B ut he ar gues that the di str i ct c ourtm i sund er sto od the l aw sur ro und i ng these two i ssues so thati t di d not r eal i ze i t s o p t i o n s a n d th e c a s e m u s t b e r e m a n d e d f o r a p r o p e r s e n t e n c i n g a n a l y s i s . A s to the l ost opportunity t o see k a co ncurr ent s entence, Orte ga- Varga s a rgues that the di str i ct c ourtwas wr o ngwhe n i tst a t e d t ha ti fOr t e g a - Va r g a s ha d b e e n c ha r g e d wh e n fi r s tdi s c o v e r e d b y I CE, so that ther e was no pros ec u tori aldel ay, the Gu i del i nes a t that t i m e “ gener al l y c al l ed f oras a m att erof pol i cy a consecuti ve sente nce s o ther e would be i ncre m entalpunishm ent. ” Read i n conte xt, however, the dist ri ct c ourtwas si m plyo bser vi ng tha t Ort ega - Varga s’ drug cri m esN o. 08

- 2886 Page 3

Or te g a- Var g as ar g ue s tha t the Gui del i ne s’ offen se l ev elc al cul at i o n t ak es i nt o a cc o unt 2 th e p rior co n vic tio n s o f an ille ga l r ee n tr y d efe n d an t, c itin g U .S.S.G . § 2L 1.2
. B u t § 2L 1.2 on ly consi ders the drug cri m es that prece ded Orte ga- Varga s’ deport ati on, notthe ones co m m i tte d afte r hi s r etur n. N ei th er do es U. S
. S
. G. § 5G1
. 3(b) appl y be ca us e th e m o st r ec ent drug convi cti ons did noti ncre ase the offense l eve l f orthe i l l ega l r eentr y. and ree ntrycr i m e a re notr el ate d s o that they m i ght natura l l y b e punis hed concurr entl y. I ts ve r y ne xt se nt en ce st at es : “T hi s i s no t a ca se wher e y o ur cl i en t’ s dr ug o ffen se . . . w as p art and parcel of the r e- entr y c ase . ” This i s a r eas onabl e obser vati on. W e hav e s tat ed “that e v e r y s e p a r at e v iola tio nof law d es er ve s a se p ar at e s an c tio n, so th at n o v iola tio n sh all go unsancti oned. ” U nite d State s v. H il l , 4 8 F
. 3d 22 8, 2 32 ( 7th Ci r . 19 95 )
. I t i s t r ue tha t th e dr ug convi cti ons ar e co m ple tel y ind ependent ofthe i l l ega l reentr y c onvi cti on and w hi l e thi s doe s 2 n otp re c lu d e a co n c u rre n t o r p ar tia lly c on c u rre n t s en te n c e, s e ei d. at23 2- 33, i t was not u n re as on ab le t o c on sid er . The dist ri ct cour t next obs er ved that Orteg a- Varga s w as att em pti ng to avo i d detect i on by us i ng an al i as i n c o nne ct i o n wi thhi s m o str ec en t dr ugc as e an d “ woul d, i n e ffec t, b e g i ve n a re w ar d i fhe were to r ecei ve a con curr ent s entence f orthe i l l ega l r e- entr y. ” Orteg a- Varga s soughtthe benefi t ofa re du ced se ntence on the bas i s that he l ostthe opportunity t o re quest a co nc ur r en t se nt en ce whenhe was di sc o ve r ed to o s o o n, b utt r i ed to o l at e, f o r hi s l i k i ng . T he d istri ct cou rt w as no t w rong to con side r this w he n d e n y in g Orte ga-V argas’ requ est for a re d u c ed se n te n c e. Fi nal l y, the cour t went on to sta te that “as a pra cti calm at ter, gi ven the bac kgr ound that ha s b een sp read on th e rec ord a nd set forth i n th e pres en ten ce rep ort, at least in this Co urt i t’s n o t l ik e ly th at a con cu rrent sen ten ce w ou ld h ave be en i m p osed

. ” On this basis, th e cou rt deci ded no t t o r e du c e Or t e g a - Va r g a s ’ s e nt e nc e b a s e d o n the l o s t o pp o r t un i t y t o r e qu e st a concurr ent s entence thatthe dist ri ct c ourtl i kel y would nothave gi ven a nyw ay b ec au se of O rt eg a-V ar ga s’ b ac kg ro u n d

. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtco n sid er ed O rt eg a-V ar ga s’ a rg u m en t a n d d id not i nd i cate thati t was pre cl ud ed fro m r educing hi s s entence bas ed o n p ro secuto ri aldel ay, but i t r ule d on the m er i ts to deny a re du cti on i n thi s ca se. Orteg a- Varga s’ se cond ar gum ent i s that the di str i ct cour t f al sel y b el i eve d i t was pro hibi ted f r o m c o n s i d e r in gth e fa s t
- t r a c kd i s p a r i ty b ec au se Or te g a- Var g as ha d a pr i o r b at te r y c o nv i ct i o n, w hic h t h e g ove rnm ent c hara cter i zed as a “cr i m e o fvi ol ence” that m i ght pr eve nt Ort ega Varga s fr o m r e c e i v i nga f a s t
- t r a c kdi s po s i t i o n e v e n i n s o me di s t r i c t s tha tu t i l i z e f a s t
- t r ack prog ra m s. Ort ega - Varga s cl ai m s that hi s ba tte ryconvi cti on is n ot a “ cri m e o fvi ol ence” as that ter m i s r el evantto f ast
- tr ack prog ra m s a nd that, eve n i fi t was, i t would notpre cl ud e hi m fro m re cei vi ng a f ast
- tr ack dispos i ti on. W e nee d not r eso l ve thi s a rgum ent b ecause the re cor d does not i nd i cate thatthe dist ri ct c ourtfel t pr ohibite d fr om r educing Orteg a- Varga s’ se ntence toN o. 08

- 2886 Page 4

Th e g o v e r nme ntr e mi nd e d the di s t r i c tc o ur ttha tOr t e g a - Va r g a s ’ b a t t e r y c o nv i c ti on 3 was a ctua l l y a mis demea no r, t o whi ch th e co ur t r es po nde d: “ Ye s. I t was a mis demea no r, b ut i t ce rt ai nl y was a case w here the defe nd ant k i cked a wom an i n the f ace and knock ed out her tee th. I t’ s a vi ol ent c ri m e. A n d I can’ t o ver l oo k the f acts as soc i ate d w i th thatpart i cul ar offe n se .” ac co unt f o r th i s di spa r i ty
. The c o ur t l i st en ed to a nd e ng ag ed Or te g a- Var g as ’ a r g um en t, b ut ult i m ate l y r ule d on the m er i ts

th atthe de fen dan t i n thi s ca se bec au se ofhi s cr i m i na l hi st o r y a nd beca u se o f t h e fa ct that he has a pri orvi ol ent fel ony as wellas 3 d ru g c on vic tio n s, es p e c i a l ly th e o n e w h ich lan d ed h im in jail re centl y her e in W i sco nsi n, does notwarran t a f our l eve l r edu ct i o n in t er m s o fthe g ui del i ne s o r i n c o nne ct i o n wi tha ny sente nce that m i ght b e i m posed. And so I am r ej ecting y our f ast tr ac k a rg u m en t. A gai n, thi s doe s no t dem onst ra te that the di str i ct c ourtthought i tse l fto be precl ud ed fro m co ns i der i ngthe f as t- tr ac ka r g um en t, o nl y tha t i t was no t i nc l i ne d to gr an t a fur th ers en te nc i ng r edu ct i o n in th i s ca se be ca us e o f Or te g a- Var g as ’ hi st o r y . Bec au se th e di st r i ct co ur t r ej ec te d the propos ed re du cti on o n the fac ts o fthi s par ti cul arcas e a nd the hi sto ryo fthi s par ti cul ar defe nd ant, we do not need to co nsi der a ny effect K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 552 U
. S. 85 (2007), m ay ha ve ha d o n U nited Sta tes v. M a rtinez -M a rtinez , 442 F.3d 539 ( 7th Cir. 2006) (district court not un reason able in refus ing to red uc e s en ten ce bas ed on fast-track d ispa rity) , or U nited Sta tes v. Gali ci a- Card e nas , 4 4 3 F
. 3 d 5 5 3 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( e r r o r t o r e du c e s e nt e nc e b a s e d o n f ast
- tr ack d ispa rity)
. I t i s cl earfro m the re cor d th at the di str i ct c ourtco nsi dered Ort ega - Varga s’ l ega l ar g um en ts , b utul ti m at ely r ul ed o n th e m er i ts o fthe c as e i n fr o nto fi t. T he c o ur t si m pl y f o und that, bec ause ofhi s cr i m i nal hi sto ry, Orte ga- Varga s s houl d not r ecei ve a fur th er - re du ced sente nce. Ort eg a-V ar gas does notar gue that the co urt l acke d the autho ri ty to exer ci se i ts disc re ti on i n thi s way. W e A FFI RM .