## 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. 10

- 2748 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. E FRAI N G ARC IA -O L I VE R OS, a/k/a M IGUEL A NGEL O L I VE R OS -L E ON, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 CR 988-1

—Blan ch e M. Mannin g, Judge
.
A RG UE D M AR CH 1, 2011

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 29, 2011

Befo re K ANN E , R OV NER, an d W OO D , C ircu it Judges. P ER C UR I AM . Efr ai n-Gar ci a Ol i ver os ple aded gui l ty to bei ng i n the U ni ted S tat es w i th ou t a uthor i zati on a fter r emov al, 8 U. S

. C. § 13 26 ( a)

. I n a wri tt en su bmi ss i on and ats enten cing, he r eque st ed a pr i so n t er m b el o w the gui del i nes ra nge on the gr ounds that h is cri m i nal hi sto rycat ego ryi s o ver sta ted, and that hi s rea so n s for r etur ni ng to thi s co unt r y mit i g at e hi s i l l eg alr ee nt r y . The2 N o. 10

- 2748 d ist ric t c ou rtse n te n c ed G ar c ia-O liv er os to 46 m on th s in pr i s o n, the b o t t o m o f the g ui de l i ne s r a ng e , b utdi d not co m m en t o n h i s ar g um en ts i n mi ti g at i on o r g i ve a ny expla nati on f orthe choi ce o fse n tence. On app ealGarci aOl i ve r o s pr i nc i pal ly argue s, a nd the g o ve r nm en t co nce des , that the di st r i ctc o ur t ne ede d t o s aymor e to e xpl ain i ts s en te nc e. Acco r di ng l y, we r emand f o r r es en tencing. G ar c ia-O live ro s firs t e n te re d th e U n ite d S t at es illega lly in19 9 6 o r 1 9 9 7, w h en h e w as 18 . H e fo llow ed h is parents , wh o cam e e ar l i erand set tl ed i n Cary, I l l i noi s. I n 2 00 4 he was c o nv i ct ed o fdr i vingunde r the i nfl uence ( as w el las o bstr ucti on o fj usti ce forl yi ng to pol i ce about hi s i dent ity ). W hi l e o n bond f orthato ffense, G a r c i a - O l i v e r o s w a s a r r e s t e d f o r s e l l i n gab o u t1 0 g r a ms ofco cai ne to an underco verpol i ce o ffi cer . H e pl eaded gui l t y t o de l i v e r y o fa c o nt r o l l e d s ub s t a nc e , a fe l o ny, a n d wa s s e n t e n c e d t o 4 2 mo n th s’ i mpr i s o n me n t
. He w as paro l ed aftera l i ttl e m or e than a y ear a nd r em ove d to M exi co i n N ove m ber20 05. I n la te 2 00 9 fede r ala g en ts l ea r ne d fr o m a n inf o r m an t that Garci a- Oli ver os had re turned t o the Unite d Sta tes an d wa s l i v i ng wi th hi s pa r e nt s . On De c e mbe r 6, 20 09, i m m i gr ati on a uthor i ti es arr est ed hi m atthe carwash w here he was e m plo yed. That s am e day age nts e xe cuted a s ear ch w ar ra nt athi s par ents’ hom e, wh er e they f ound a r usted but functi ona l a ss au l t r i fl e in the gar age , and a m aga zi ne and a m m u n i ti on f orthe gun in Garci aOli ver os’ s be droo m . N o ch ar ge re l ating to the gun w as bro ught ag ai nst Gar ci a- Oli ver os.N o. 10

- 2748 3 A fterGarci a- Oli ver os p leaded gui l ty to the i m m i gr ati on cr im e, a pr obat i on o ffi cercal cul ate d a to talo ffense l eve lo f21 , a Category I I Icr i m i nalhi sto ry, and a guidel i ne s i m pr i so nm en t r an g e o f4 6 to 5 7 m o nths

. The offense l eve li ncor pora tes a 16- offense l eve li ncre ase und erU

. S. S. G. § 2 L1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) bec ause Garci a- Oli ver os h a d b e e n se n te n c ed to m or e t h an 13 m on th s o n h is 20 04 dr ugo ffen se . At s en te nc i nghe di d no t co nt es t th e pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce r ’ s ca l cul at i o ns , but, as he ha d done al re ady i n a wri tte n subm i ssi on, Ga rc ia- Oli ver os ar gued f o r a s en te nc e be l o w the g ui del i ne s im p r i so nm en t ra nge o n the gr ounds that the 1 6- l eve li ncre ase under § 2L1

. 2(b) ( 1) ( A)( i ) i s ex ce ss i ve i n h i s ca se , a nd tha t he w as m ot iva te d to ret u rn to t h e U n ite d Sta te s illeg ally b ec au se h e fa c ed p ov er ty in M ex ico an d w as n ee d ed in I ll inois to help care for his ai ling f a t he r and sup p ort the f am ily. The se ntenci ng j ud ge l i ste ned to defe nse counsel ’ s pre senta ti on w i thout com m ent, as i de fro m br i efl y a sk i ngabo utGa r ci a- O li ve r o s’ s f ami l y a nd s ta ting that she would r ead l ett er s o f r ec om m endati on he had offer ed t o the c ourt
. But i n prono uncing a s entence w i thi n the gui del i nes r ange, and in h er wri tte n sta tem en t o fr ea so ns , the j udg e di d no t ex pl ain wha t co nsid er at ion s h ad influ en c ed h er se n te n c in g d ec i s i o n or, in parti cul ar, what she thought about Garci a- Oli ver os’ ar gum en ts i n mi ti g at i o n. A se ntenci ng co urt com m i ts proce du ra ler ro r by not ad eq u at ely e x p lain in g its c h oic e o f se n te n c e. U nited Sta tes v. Sc hlu eter, _ __ F.3d ___, 2011 W L 81499 5, at *2 ( 7th Cir. M ar . 10, 20 11 ); U nite d States v. Scott, 631 F. 3d 401, 40 8 ( 7th C ir. 20 11 ); U nited Sta tes v. West, 62 8 F.3 d 42 5, 43 1 ( 7th4 N o. 10

- 2748 Ci r . 2 01 0)

. A st at emento fr easons no t o nl y i nf o r m s o ur re vi ew o fthe sente nce, but al so prom ote s “ the per cepti on off ai r sente nci ng. ” G a ll v. U n i t e d Sta tes , 55 2 U.S

. 38 , 50 ( 2007 )

. A se ntenci ng co urt i s no t re q uir ed to expl ai n i ts vi ew o n e ve r y a r g um ent i n mi ti g at i o n o r a g g r av at i o n, U ni t e d Sta tes v
. M i r anda , 505 F.3d 785 , 792 (7th C ir. 2007); Uni t e d S t at e s v . Acos ta , 4 7 4 F. 3d 999, 1003 ( 7th Cir. 2007), buti n thi s i ns ta nc e th e di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t addr es s an y of G ar c ia

- O live ro s’s arg u m en ts or giv e a n y re as on atall t o e xp l a i n the p r i s o n s e nt e nc e i mpo s e d. W e h a v e r e c o g ni z e d tha tthe n e e d fo r e xp l a na ti on ty pi ca l l y i s d i mi n i s h e d wh e n a s e n t e n c e f a l l s wi th i n t he gu id elin es ran ge , U n it ed States v. Curby, 59 5 F

. 3d 794, 79 7 (7th C ir. 2010); U nite d State s v. Harris , 56 7 F

. 3d 846, 85 4 ( 7th C ir. 20 09 ), or w h en th e a rg u m e n ts in m itig at ion are ob viousl y without m er i t or so ro uti ne as to be “st ock, ” U nited Sta te s v . G a ry, 613 F.3d 70 6, 71 0 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); U nited Sta tes v. P ulley, 601 F. 3d 660, 667 ( 7th C ir. 2010); U nite d States v. Tahz ib , 513 F.3d 69 2 , 6 9 5 ( 7th Cir. 2007). T h e f acto rs offered i n m iti gation h ere

— e c o n o mi c h a r dshi p, f am i l y c i rcum stances, and the seve ri ty ofa 16- lev el in c re as e u n d er § 2L 1. 2 ( b )(1) (A )(i)

— ar e n otu n u su al. See U nite d States v. M oreno-Pad il la , 60 2 F

. 3d 8 02, 81 0- 14 (7t h C ir. 20 10 ); U nite d States v. A guilar- H uer ta , 576 F. 3d 365, 36 7-6 9 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); U nited Sta tes v. M a rtinez , 52 0 F

. 3d 74 9 , 75 3 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); Tahz ib , 51 3 F

. 3d at 695. Even so , the dist ri ct cour t sti l l w as re quir ed to expla i n w h y i ts ch oice of46 m ont hs i s ap p rop riate in li gh t of th e factors in18 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a). See 18 U .S.C

. § 3 55 3(c ); M i r anda , 50 5 F.3 d at79 2; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob i ns on , 43 5 F

. 3d 699, 70 0- 01 (7th C ir. 2006 ). Th e record before us is too th in to discernN o. 10

- 2748 5 th e con side rations w hich m otiv a t ed the d istri ct cou rt’s sen ten cing dec isi on. I n l ight of th e sen ten cing ju d g e’s com ple te si lence, we accept the g ove rnm ent’ s co nfe ssi on ofer ro r and rem and thi s ca se f orr ese ntenci ng. Garci a- Oli ver os’ se ntence i s V ACATED , and the case i s R EMAND ED f orr ese ntenci ng.

4- 29- 11