## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 3314 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. V INCENT E R AMIRE Z -M EN D O ZA, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC ourt fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 10- Cr- 175

— Rudo lphT. Rand a, Judg e. A RG UE D M AR CH 29, 2012

— D ECI DE D J UNE 8, 2012

Befo re K ANN E , R OV NER, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . F acing charge s o fco nspir acy to kidn ap , un law ful posse ssion of a fir e a rm i n furth erance o fa crim e o fvi ol ence, and conspi ra cy to dist ribute m ar ij u an a, Vi ncente Ram i re z- M endoza a gr eed to pl ead gu il tys o l ely t o the mar ij ua na - co ns pi r ac y c ha r g e. The dist ri ct c ourtse ntenced Ram i re z- M endoza t o 144 m onths’ im p ris on m en t. R am ire z-M en d oz a now chal l enges that sente nce i n part by ar gui ng that the di str i ct2 N o. 11

- 3314

cour t insuffi ci entl y c onsi dered non- fri vol ous a rgum ents i n m i ti gat i on. W e agr ee and thus, r em and fo r re sente nci ng.

I . B AC KGR OUND Vince nte Ram i re z- M endoza was par t o fa l ar ge-sc ale dr ug tr affi ck i ng o r g an i za ti o n th at di st r ibut ed m ar ij ua na i n and aro u n d C h i cago and M i l w aukee

. In A pri lo r M ay 2010 , Robe rt o Viz cai no- Orti z, a soc i alacquai ntance ofRam i re z- M endoza, i ntro du ced hi m to H ecto r Viz cai noOrti z, Robe rt o’ s bro ther

. Shor tl y after thei r i ni ti alm eet i ng, Ram i re z- M endoza a gr eed to actas a m i dd l em an f orma r ij ua na t r a ns a c t i o ns b e t we e n He c t o ra nd J ose Rodri guez, a m ar ij uana supp lier

. That i s, Ram i re zM endo za a r r an g ed f o rHec to rt o pur ch as e m ar ij ua na fro m Rodri guez on co nsi gnm ent for w hi ch Ram i re zM en do za was pa i d a to k enco m m i ss i o n. Thi s ar r an g ement continued unti l approxi m ate l y Au gust 2010 , wh en H ecto r sto pp ed payi ng Rodri guez for p re vi ousl y purchas ed m arij ua na . T ha t m issed pa ym en t am ou nt ed to som ew he re be tw een $ 30 , 00 0 ( Ra m i r ez - M en do za ’ s es ti m at e) a nd $75,000 (the pres en ten ce rep ort’s ( PSR ) estim ate). Pr e di c t ab l y, R o dr i g ue z de man de d p a y men t, a nd a c c o r din g t o R am ire z-M en d oz a, R od rig u ez p re ss u re d h im to co llec t fro m H e c t or . W h en R am ire z-M en d oz a’s ca lls to H ecto r w ent unanswered, Rodri guez apparen tly sugg es ted tha t Ra m i r ez - M en do za c al lRobe r to t o de m an d paym ent o n H ecto r’ s debt

. Robe rt o answ er ed Ram i re zM en d o z a ’ s c a l l s b u t r e fu s e d o r wa s u n ab l e t o b a i l o ut hi s b r o the r . Und e t e r r e d, R a mi r e z - M e nd o za an d p e r ha ps one orm or e a sso ci ate s visit ed R obe rt o at w or k four orN o. 11

- 3314 3 fi ve ti m es i n hopes o ft ra cking down H ecto r. Through thi s al l, Ram i re z- M endoza m ai ntai ns that he onl y c al l ed on Hectorand Rober to because Rodri gu ez thre ate ned i nj ury to Ram i rez-M en doza’ s f am i l y i fhe f ai l ed to h elp R od rig u ez se c u re p ay m en t. Rodri guez’ s dem ands f orp aym ent c am e t o a hea d on Au gust 27, 20 10. That m or ni ng, tw o m en as saul ted Ro be r to in M il wauk ee , dr ag g ed hi m int o a v an, a nd eve ntual l y tr anspor ted hi m to a house on So ut h Sa cra men t o Av e nu e i n Ch i c a g o whe r e he wa s b o un d to a c h air w i th duct ta pe and fl ex- cuff s. Robe rt o re port ed that the k i dn appers car ri ed fi re ar m s du ring the o rdeal an d shoc ked him w ith an electri c c attle prod

. Rob erto’s c a p t o r s a lso forc ed h im to m ak e p h on e c alls to fam ily m em ber s s eek i ng the m oneyhi s br othe r H ecto r owed Rodri guez. For tunately, Rober to esca ped the nex t d ay. A subse quent sea rch ofthe Sac ra m ento A venu e house re veal ed a pai r ofbo ots , l ate r i dentifi ed as Rober to’ s, w h ich w er e d u c t t ap ed to th e le gs of a c h air fou n d in th e b as em en t. A l though i t is u nd i sputed that Ram i re z- M endoza j oined th e k i dna pper s o n Aug us t 27, the g o ve r nm enta nd R am i r ez - M en do za di sa g r ee abo uthi s r o l e i n Robe r to’s k i dn a pp i ng . R a mi r e z - M e nd o z a p r i nc i pa l l y c o nt e nd s th a th e w a s a l s o h e l d c a p t i v e a n d t o r t u r e d a tth e s a me tim e as Robe rt o. To b ol ste r hi s cl ai m , Ram i re z- M endoza po i nt s to a s ec o nd c ha ir f o und in the S ac r ament o Ave nue ho us e tha tal s o co nt a i ne d r e mna nt s o fdu c tt a pe

— evi dence that su pp ose dlypro ves that Ram i re z- M endoza was for c ibly res tr ai n ed . Ra m ire z-M en d oz a c laim s t h ath is4 N o. 11

- 3314 cousin eve ntual l y fre ed hi m . T he go vernm ent, o fco urse , d isp utes Ram i re z- M endoza’ s s tory a nd cl ai m s instea d that Ram i re z- M en d oz a p l aye d a r ol e in the ki dn apping. A s e vi dence, the gov er nm ent c ol l ect ed cel l

- phone to w er d a t a , wh i c hs h o ws th a tR a mi r e z - Me n d o z a ’ s p h o ne

— an d p re su m ab ly R am ire z-M en d oz a h im se lf

— tr avel ed fro m Ch i cago to M i l w aukee o n th e m orni ng o fA ugust 2 7, an d the n b ac kt o Chi ca g o ( ne arthe S ac r amen to Aven ue hou se) from M il w au kee later thatsam e d ay. T his itine rary i s co nsi ste nt with the theor y that Ram riez- M endoza tr avel ed to M i l w aukee to ki dn ap Rober to, and then drove bac k t o C h icag o w here Robe rt o w as hel d capti ve. A nd per haps m osti m port antl y, the gov er nm en t points out t h at Ram i re z- M endoza c ontinued to l ean o n Rober to a nd R o b e r t o ’ s r e l a t i v e s f o rp a y men te v e n a ft e rR obe rt o es c ap ed

. Dur i ng the s ub s e qu e nt i nv e s t i g a t i o n, de t e c t i v e s r equested thatRobe rt o plac e a reco rded phone cal lto Ram i rez- M endoza. Robe rt o ask ed Ram i re z- M endoza t o l eave hi m al one and that i t was noth i s obl i gat i on t o pay hi s br othe r’ s debt s. Ram i re z- M endoza r esponded that

“ i t ’ s n o tmyd o i n g ” a n d “ [ i ] t ’ s n o tc o mi n gfr o m m e bro the r. . . y o u k no w wha tthe y di d t o me . ” R a mir ezM en d oz a w as arr es te d o nSep te m b er 8, 20 10 , for h is ro le i n Rober to’ s k i dn apping and the Rodri guez m ar ij uanadist ributi on co nspir acy. O n A p ril12, 2011 , th e govern m en t fi led a sec ond sup ersedi ng ind i ctm ent c harg i ng Ram i re z- M endoza with: ( 1) c o ns pi r a c y t o c o mm i t k i dn a pp i ng, i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 201( a) ; (2) poss ess i on o fa fi re ar m i n further ance o fN o. 11

- 3314 5

a c r i me o f v i o l e n c e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) ; and ( 3) conspi ra cy to dist rib u te 10 0 k i l o g r a ms o rmo re ofma r ij ua na, i n v i o l a t i o n o f2 1 U. S
. C. §§ 846 and 841(b) ( 1) ( B). On J une 23, Ram i re z- M en doza ple d gui l ty to count three , the drug- conspi ra cy ch arge. A n att achm ent (A tt ac hm ent A) t o the wri tte n ple a a gr eem en t se r ve d a s th e factualb as i s f o rthe pl ea . Att ac hm en t A pro vi des , i n pa r t, tha t l ar g e- sc al e dr ugt r affi ck i ng o r g a ni za ti o ns

— such as the o rg ani zati on t o w hi ch Ram i re zM endoza b el onge d

— ofte n use v i ol ence aga i nst those w ho failto pay dru g d ebts or as a m ean s to otherwi s e ma i n t a i nc o n t r o lo v e rth e o r g a n i z a t i o n . Atth e s en te n c in g h ea rin g , R am ire z-M en d oz a’s co u n se l tim ely o bj ec ted to thi s po r ti o n o fAtt ac hm en t A by s ay i ng th a t R a m i r e z - M e n d o z a “ d i d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y k n o w s o me oftho se facts”

— m eani ng tha t Ram i re z- M endoza was unaw ar e that v i ol ence coul d be use d in c onnecti on with the c onspi ra cy. Fo r th e q u an tit y of m a r iju an a a t is su e, th e P SR init ially cal cul ate d Ram i re z- M endoza’ s ba se- l eve lo ffense as 26. Fr om ther e, the PSR r eco m m ende d atwo- l eve lenhancem en t for p os se ss ion o f a firea rm , see U
. S. S. G
. § 2D 1.1(b)(1), a t w o-le ve l en h an c em en t fo r u se of vio len c e, see U. S
. S
. G. § 2 D1. 1(b) ( 2) , and a three

- l eve ladj ustm ent foracc eptance of re sp on sib ility , see U
. S. S. G
. § 3E 1.1( a)-(b). Th us , the P SR re com m ended a se ntenci ng r ange of70 to 87m onths’ i m pri sonm ent b ase d on a tot alcr i m i nalo ffense l eve lo f 27 and a Categ or y Icr i m i nalhi sto ry . N otabl y, the dist ri ct co ur t a c c e p t e d th e P S R ’ s r e c o mme n d a t i o n, o ve rthe g o ve r nm ent’ s obj ecti on, ag ai nst a pp l ying a tw o- l eve lenhancem en t un d er U. S
. S
. G. § 2 D1. 1(b) ( 12 ) f o rmai nt aini ng6 N o. 11

- 3314 a pre m i ses f orm anufa cturing o r storing m ar ij uana. The dis tr i ct c ourtul ti m ate l y depar ted fro m the gui del i nes r ange and i m posed a sente nce of 144 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent.

II. A N A L Y S IS W e r evi ew Ram i re z- M endoza’ s sente nce f orr eas onabl en es s un d er an ab u se of dis c re tio ns ta n d ar d

. U nited St at e s v. Engl and, 604 F.3d 460 , 464 (7th C ir. 2010). Fi rs t, we deter m i ne w hetherthe sente nci ng co urt com m i tted pro cedu ra ler ro r

— such er ro rs i ncl ud e, f orexam ple , an i m p rop erly calcu lated guid eli ne s rang e or th e fai lure to co n sid er th e 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a) fa c to rs . U nited State s v. Scott, 555 F. 3d 605, 608 ( 7th C ir. 2009 ). I f t h ere w as no pro c ed uraler ro r, we then r evi ew the sente nce for su b st an tiv e re as on ab len es s. Id. On appeal, R am i re z- M endoza contends that the di str i ct cour t co m m i tte d thre e e rr or s in r en deri ng an abov eg ui del i ne s se nt en ce, a l th o ugh we ha ve g r o upe d the fi rs t tw o f orea se ofanal ysi s. Fi rs t, R am irez- M endoza ar gu e s t h atth e s en te n c in g c ou rtfailed to ad eq u at ely add re s s t wo o fh i s a r g ume nt s : ( 1 ) wh e the rR a mi r ezM e nd o z a wa s c o e r c e d int o p ar t i c i pa t i ngi n the k i dna ppi ng ; an d ( 2) w he th er Rob erto’s k i dna ppi ng w as f or ese eabl e. S eco n d, Ram i re z- M endoza a rgues th atthe l en g thofhi s s en te nc e was s ubs ta nt i ve l y unr ea so nab le.N o. 11

- 3314 7 A. Proc e dural Er r or W e be gi n w i th the o ft- ci ted princi ple thatthe sente nci ng co urt “m ust a dequ ate l y e xplain the chose n sent ence to al l ow fo r m eani ngful appe llat e re vi ew and to pro m ote the per cepti on o ff ai r sente nci ng. ” G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 55 2 U .S
. 38 , 50 (2 00 7); s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Gar ci aO l i ve r os , 639 F.3d 3 8 0 , 381 (7th C ir. 2011) (per cu riam ); ( “A sente nci ng cour t com m i ts proce du ra l er ro r by not ade qua te l y e xpl aini ng its ch o i ce o fs en te nc e. ”)
. But i n a pp l y i ng G a ll, we have c ar efully no ted thata sente nci ng j u d ge “ n eed notbel aborthe obvi ous, ” U nited Sta tes v. Gary, 6 13 F
. 3d 70 6, 7 09 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) , no rmustthe sente nci ng j ud ge al w ays address “stoc k” ar gum ents m ade i n m i ti gat i on , U nite d States v. Tahz ib , 51 3 F
. 3d 69 2, 69 5 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); G a ry, 61 3 F.3 d at70 9 ( “ ‘ [ S] toc k’ ar gum ents i n m i ti gat i on often can be rej ecte d with litt le orev en no ex p l anati on. ”)
. “S toc k” ar gum ents have been previ ousl y defined as near - m er i tl ess ar gum ents that a s entencing co urt fre quentl y e ncoun te rs . See, e.g., Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Me n d oza , 576 F.3d 711 , 722 (7th C ir. 2009); Tahz ib , 51 3 F
. 3d at 695. W i th that, w e turn to the questi on of w hether the di str i ct cou rt ad eq ua tely add ressed tw o of Ra m irez-M en d oza’s pri nci pal ar gum ents. F i rs t, Ram i re z- M endoza a rgues that the di str i ct c ourti gnor ed hi s cl ai m that h e was co er ced i nto parti ci pati ng in th e ki dn apping, and thus, wh ether he was enti tl ed to a re du cti on t o hi s ca l culat ed cr i m i nal offe n se lev el. SeeU. S
. S
. G. § 5 K2. 12 ( “I fthe de fen dan t com m i tte d the o ffen se because o fse ri ous c oer ci on, bl ackm ai lo r du re ss, under ci rcum sta nces not am ou n ting to8 N o. 11

- 3314

a com p lete defen se, th e cou rt m ay d ep art d ow nw ard

. ”). W e a gr ee. In hi s s entencing m em or andu m , Ram i re zM endoza o ffer ed evi dence sugges ting that he was als o kid n ap p ed or, ata m in im u m , s u b je c t ed to sign ificant pr ess ure to coll ect H ecto r’ s debt

. Fo r exam ple , Ram i re z- M endoza cl ai m s that Rodr i guez thre ate ned harm to Ram i re z- M endoza’ s f am i l y i fhe di d not hel p col l ect the debt

. Ram irez- M endoza a l so poi nts t o hi s s tat em ent during the r eco rded phon e cal lwith Rober to

— “[ i ] t’ s no t com i ng fr om m e bro ther

. . . yo u know w hat they di d to m e”

— w hich cou ld be evid e n c e o f coerci on. Th e r e i s a l s o the mat t e r o f the du c t t a pe f o un d o n a se co nd c ha i ri n the S o uth S ac r ament o ho us e an d th e s im p le fa c t th atR am ire z-M en d oz a c on sis te n t ly an d f o r ce ful l y c al l ed o n Robe r to t o a ns w er f o rthe debt, ev en tho ugh Ram i re z- M endoza a n d Robe rt o w er e s oc ial acquai ntances
. A l lthi s i s t o saythatRam i re zM en d oza’s coercion argum en t is m ore tha n a m ere st oc k a rg u m en t. A c c or d in g ly, th e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld have add re sse d i t a t the se ntenci ng hea ring. The g overnm ent c oncedes that the di str i ct c ourtneve r ex pr es sly a ddr es se d Ra m i r ez- M en do za ’ s co er ci o n a r g um en t; ra ther, the gov er nm ent c onte nd s that the di str i ct co ur t i m pl i ci tl y r ej ec te d the a r g um en t byc al l i ng i nto questi on Ram i re z- M endoza’ s cr edibi l i ty

—b u t i n a di ffer en t co nt ex t. The di st r i ctc o ur t’ s i nt i m at i o n wi th o ut c on fro n tin g t h e co er c ion arg u m en t h ea d -on is sim p ly n ote n ou gh for n on -friv olo u s a rg u m en ts
. See U nited Sta tes v. Sc hro eder, 536 F. 3d 746, 756 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. A l ternati vel y, th e governm en t su g g es ts tha t any e r r o rb y the d ist ric t c ou rtis h ar m les s. SeeU nite d States v. A cost a ,N o. 11

- 3314 9 47 4 F .3d 99 9, 10 04 (7t hC ir. 20 07 ). A cost a i s in ap posi te. The r e, we no te d tha t th e defen dan t’ s co er ci o n a r g um en t w as m eritl ess, entirely p rem ised on th e d efend an t’s self

ser vi ng tes ti m ony, and no t eve n a pri nci pal f ocus at h er s e n te n c in g h ea rin g. Id. The e xa cto ppo si te i s true ofRam i re z- M endoza’ s a rgum ent. A dd i tio nal l y, har m l ess er r o r pl ay s a r o l e i n se nt en cing when a di st r i ct cou rt d oe s n otd isc u ss an im m at er ial se n te n c in g a rg u m en t. Id. at 1003 ( ci t i ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cunn i ngh am , 42 9 F .3d 67 3, 678 (7th Cir. 2005)). A s d is c us sed , Ram irez-M en d oza’s a r gume nt is n otfr i v o l o us , a nd thu s , i tc a nn o tb e s we pt aw ay th roug h h arm less error. U l ti m ate l y, the gov er nm ent m ay dispute the r el evance o r truth o fthe coer ci o n e vi den ce , a nd the g o ve r nm en t m i ght b e cor re ct i n ar gui ng that Ram i re z- M endoza c re ate d thi s co er ci on s tory o ut o fwh ol e cl oth. W e t ake no vi ew on the ve ra ci ty ofRam i re z- M endoza’ s theory , except to saythat itw as a p rinci pal argum ent w or thy ofthe dis tr i ct c ou rt ’s a tt en tio n . Se eCunn i ngh am , 42 9 F
. 3d at 679 ( “A j ud ge w ho f a i l s t o me nt i o n a g r o un d o fr e c o g ni z e d l e gal m er it (p rovi ded i t has a f actualbas i s) i s l i kely t o have co m m i tt ed an e r r o ro ro ve r si g ht

. ”)
. Thi s ar g um en t w as nei th erm er i tl ess noro ne fre quentl y e ncounter ed by sent en ci ng co urts
. I t dese rv ed the att enti on o f the di str i ct c ourt
. R am irez-M en d oza also claim s th at th e d istri ct c o urt f ai l ed to adequately consi der w hetherhi s co - conspi ra tor s’ acti ons should b e charg ed to hi m as r el evantco nd uct. See U
. S. S. G. § 1 B1. 3( a) ( 1) ( B) ( General l y, a defe nd ant ca n be he l d l i ab l e f o r“ al lr ea so nably for es ee ab l e ac ts a nd10 N o. 11

- 3314

om issi ons of oth ers in furt he ran ce of the j ointly un d ertaken crim inal ac t iv it y . . . . ”). H ere, th e d istri ct cou rt enhanced Ram i re z- M e nd o z a ’ s se ntence because th e kidn ap p ing an d use of fi rearm s by h is co- con sp irators was r ea so nabl y f o r es ee ab l e to hi m , a nd thus , r el ev an t f or pu rpos es of cra fti ng hi s sente nce. Bu t, R am ire zM en do za f au l ts the di st r ict co ur t f o ri m pr o per l y r ely i ng on di sputed evi dence. S peci fi cal l y, Ram i re z- M endoza hi g hl i g ht s hi s obj ecti o n t o o ne pa r ag r apho fAtt ac hm en t A to the p l e a a g r e e men t, wh i c h i nd i c a t e d tha tR a mi r ezM en do za was a war e of th e vi o l en ce dr ugt r affi ck i ng or ga n iza tio n s t yp ica lly u se to co llec t d ru g d eb ts
. On a ppea l, Ra m i r ez - M en do za c l ai m s th atthe d istri ct c ourti m proper l y r el i ed upon the obj ecte d-to para gr ap hin A tt ac h m en t A in h old in g th ath is c o-c on spi ra to rs ’ vio len t a c ts w er e fo re se ea b le. A ss u m in g th is is tru e, R a m irez-M en d oza argu es th at th e d istri ct cou rt neversuffi ci entl y e xplained w hy hi s co -c onspi ra tor s’ vi ol ence shoul d be char ged to hi m as r el evantco nd uct. W e g ener al l y a gr ee w i th Ram i re z- M endo z atha tthe di str i ct c ou rt im proper l y m enti oned hi s “ adm i ssi ons ,” w hi ch presum abl y i s a re fer ence to the obj ecte d-to par agr aph i n A tta chm ent A. But, the dist ri ct c ourtal so m a de a n e xp l i c i tc r e dib i l i ty fi nd i ngo n the f o r e s e e ab i l i ty i ssue. S peci fi cal l y, the dist ri ct c ourtsa i d: “A di sas soc i ati on bythe defe nse t o th es e [ f or ese eabi l i ty] f acts i s no t be li evab le . .

. g i ve n the phy si ca le vi den ce tha t
. . . c o nne ct [ s] the De fen dan t to the se e ve nt s. A nd I’m r efer r i ng to th e c el lpho ne s an d o th erf ac ts tha t m ak e th o se a r g um en ts relative to d isassociation im p lausible . . . . ” (Sent. Tr. a t5 3
. ) S uc h a c r e dib i l i ty f i nd i ngi s ex a c t l y th e ty pe o ffi nd

-N o. 11

- 3314 11

W e are skep tical tha t R am irez-M en d oz a’s foreseea b ility 1 argu m en ti s worthy o fthe di s t ri c tc our t ’ s at t en t i on

— tha t is, whethe r i tis s om ethi ng o the r thana s t oc k a rg um en t
. Anyon e w ho so m u ch as op en s a new sp ap er m u st kn ow tha t larg e-scale dru g conspir aci es use violence to m aint ain t erri tory, ens ure pay m ent, and enforc e organizat ional s tr ucture. Surel y R am ir ezM en d oz a h ad som e ink ling tha t R od rig u ez w ou ld reso r t to v iolen ce if a cu stom e r failed to p ay a $3 0,000 or $ 75 ,000 d eb t. That s ai d, we as s um e without dec i di ng thatthi s i s a m er i t or i ous c l ai m an d i ns t ea d fi nd that the di s t ri c t c our t ’ s c re di bi l i t y fi ndi ng suffic ie ntl y explai ns i ts choi ce ofs ente nce. in g n ec es sa ry for a d ist ric t c ou rtto h av e s u fficie n tly consi dered a defe nd ant’ s sentencing argum ent. A l though the di str i ct c ourtsho uld have av oi ded r efer ring to a co ntest ed adm i ssi on, we are sa tisfied thati ts bri ef cr edibi l i ty d eterm ination adequ at el y e xpl ai ns t he deci si on to r ej ect Ram i re z- M endoza’ s for ese eabi l i ty ar gu m en t. S e eUn i t e dS t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 616 F.3 d 685, 69 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( “Be ca us e thi s ex pl an at i o n de m o nst ra te d th e c ou rt ’s b as is for its r e a s o n s, it m at te rs little th att h e e x p lan at ion w as br ief.” ); Sc hro eder, 536 F. 3d at 755 ( “A s ho r t ex pl an at i o n wi l ls uffi ce wher e th e co nt ex t and rec or d m a k e cl earthe re aso ni ng underl yi ng the di str i ct cou rt’s conc lusion.”). 1

B
. Su bsta ntiv e R easo na bleness B ec au se the di str i ct c ourtdi d not a dd re ss one m er i torious argum ent offer ed i n m i ti gat i on, w e need not c onsi der w h et h er R am ire z-M en d oz a’s se n te n c e w as su b st an tiv ely12 N o. 11

- 3314

u n re as on ab le. S e eC u n n i n g h am , 4 2 9 F
. 3 d a t6 8 0
. B u t, we tak e thi s opportunity to str ess that sente nci ng j u d ges ri ghtl y m ai ntain s i gni fi cant disc re ti on in f ashi oni ng an appropri ate se ntence. I t i s the se ntenci n g j u d ge that hear s e vi dence and m ake s cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati ons, bo th ofwh i ch gi ve the j ud ge i nsi ghts into a ca se that a c old rec or d sim p ly c a n n otco n ve y. G all , 55 2 U.S
. at51

- 52. U l ti m ate l y, gi ven the ser i ousness and v i ci ousne ss o f the a l l ege d ki dn apping, a 144- m onth s entence m ay be r eas onabl e, and the sente nci ng j ud ge i s fre e t o re i m pose that sente nce afteradequately c onsi deri ng R am ire zM endoza’ s co er ci on a rgum ent.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe f or egoi ng r eas ons, we V ACATE Ram i re zM e nd o z a ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd R E M A ND t o the di str i ct c ourtf or re sente nci ng.

6- 8- 12