United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

May 9, 2007

Before

Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 01-2065

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Eastern

District of Wisconsin,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98 CR 104

WILFREDO VASQUEZ, also known Lynn Adelman, 

as PITO, also known as PETE, Judge.

Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER

Wilfredo Vasquez appealed his conviction and sentence for racketeering and

drug conspiracy charges. We affirmed his conviction, United States v. Olson, 450

F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2006), and ordered a limited remand to ask whether the district

court would have imposed the same sentence under an advisory regime. United

States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 483-84 (7th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

1343 (2006). See also United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The district

court has now indicated that it would impose the same sentence knowing that the

guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory. United States v. Vasquez, No. 98-

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 01-2065 Page 2

CR-104 (E.D. Wis. filed Nov. 3, 2006) (hereafter "Memorandum"). We invited

Vasquez and the United States to respond to the district court's Memorandum. 

Vasquez has not responded. The United States urges us to affirm the sentence as

reasonable given the nature of Vasquez's conduct, which included three murders,

numerous attempts at murder, witness tampering, and large-scale drug trafficking.

Both Vasquez and the government agreed on remand that the properly

calculated guidelines range is a sentence of life. The government notes that the

presentence report calculated an offense level of 53 and a criminal history category

of V for Vasquez. The highest offense level included in the relevant version of the

guidelines is 43 and thus Vasquez exceeded the most egregious level included in the

guidelines chart by ten levels. The district court thus correctly found that the

guidelines range for Vasquez is life. Vasquez argued before the district court that a

sentence of less than life imprisonment would be sufficient under the factors

outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

In its very thorough Memorandum, the district court carefully considered the

factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), applying each section to Vasquez's

particular circumstances. In assessing the nature of the offense, the court

recounted the facts of three brutal murders, numerous shootings and murder

attempts, a kidnapping, an attempted kidnapping, numerous beatings, drug

trafficking, and witness tampering. The court noted that Vasquez held a leadership

position in the Latin Kings, a role that he "relished." The court commented that

Vasquez "offers absolutely no mitigation for any of his conduct, which is among the

most violent, depraved and indifferent to human life imaginable." In evaluating

Vasquez's character, the court found that by the age of twenty-four, he had acquired

a serious record of criminal conduct, fathered three children for whom he failed to

provide adequate support, and used marijuana on a daily basis. On balance, the

court considered evidence that Vasquez had a difficult childhood, had made some

attempts to leave gang life behind, and had obtained his GED while in prison. But

Vasquez had also continued to engage in gang activity while in prison awaiting trial

in this matter, including participating in the brutal beating of a jail guard. The

court found that the positive factors could not outweigh the negative factors in

Vasquez's character and background.

The court also thoroughly considered the purposes of sentencing in

determining that a life sentence was necessary and appropriate. Vasquez's crimes

qualified as the worst the district court encountered. The court found a life

sentence necessary to satisfy the need for just punishment, to promote respect for

the law, to deter Vasquez and others from committing similar crimes, and to avoid

unwarranted disparity in sentencing. The court thus determined that it would have

imposed the same sentence had it known the guidelines were advisory rather than

mandatory.
No. 01-2065 Page 3

We have held that a properly calculated guidelines sentence is entitled to a

rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d

606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Vasquez has provided no reason to rebut that

presumption, and the district court has given a very thorough analysis of the

section 3553(a) factors in support of that sentence. See United States v. Dean, 414

F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that the sentencing judge need only provide

an adequate statement of the judge's reasoning, consistent with section 3553(a), for

thinking that the sentence selected is indeed appropriate for the particular

defendant). Under the law of this circuit, that is enough to affirm the sentence as

reasonable. 

The Supreme Court has issued a writ of certiorari to determine whether

presumptions like the one adopted in Mykytiuk are consistent with United States

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v. Rita, 177 Fed. Appx. 357 (4th Cir.

2006), cert. granted, 127 S. Ct. 551 (2006). We have therefore assessed the

reasonableness of Vasquez's sentence without applying any presumptions. See

United States v. Nitch, 477 F. 3d 933, 937-38 (7th Cir. 2007). Without applying the

Mykytiuk presumption, we find that the district court's choice of sentence was

reasonable. The nature of Vasquez's crimes, his continued criminal activity in

prison, his lack of remorse, the need for specific and general deterrence, and all of

the other factors detailed in the district court's Memorandum fully support a

sentence of life imprisonment. We therefore affirm that sentence and the judgment

of the district court.

AFFIRMED.