## In the



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

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 4302 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J UAN A. M OR EN O -P ADILLA, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Divisi on. No . 08 CR 416-1

—Rebec ca R. Pal lmey er, Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 18, 2009

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 8, 2010

B efor e E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd W I L L I A MSa nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. A p p ella n t Ju an A . M or en o-P ad illa w as i nd i cted on one count of i l l ega l re entr y i n vio lati on of8 U
. S. C. § 1 326( a) & (b) ( 2)
. H e pl eaded gui l ty and w as sente nced to ei ghty m onths’ i m pri sonm ent fol l ow ed by three y ear s o fsuperv i sed r el eas e. M or eno- Padil l a no w chal l enges hi s s entence . He dis pu tes two fi nd i ngs affec tingthe c al cul at i o n o fhi s cr i m i na lhi st o r y a nd2 N o. 08

-4302 the a pp l i cati on o fa 16-levelenhancem ent purs uant to U. S
. S
. G
. § 2 L 1
. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A)
. We a ffi r m.
I . B a c kg r o und J uan A
. M or eno- Padil l a i s a cit ize n of M exi co. H e i s no t a l aw ful perm anent r esi dent orci ti zen ofthe U ni ted St at es , bu t h e h as live d in t h e U n ite d Sta te s e ss en tia lly co nt i nuo us l y sin ce h i s ch i l dho o d. F ede r alo ffi ci al s f o und M o r en o - Pa di l l a l i vingi n Chi ca g o wi thhis pa r en ts a nd s i s t e ri n2 0 0 4 , a n d h e w as d e p o r t e d t o Me x i c o . He re turned t o the Unite d Sta tes i l l ega l l y in J anuary20 08. H e r etur ned to I l l i noi s up on hi s r eentry, and on M ar ch 14, 20 08 ple aded gui l ty t o an ag gr avat ed DU Io ffense. H e was s en te nc ed to e i g ht ee n m ont hs i n s ta te pr i so n. O ffi c e r s a tth e S t a t e v i l l e C o r r e c t i o n a lF a c i l i ty b e c a me su spi ci o us abo utM o r en o - Pa di l l a’ s i m m i g r at i o n s ta tu s ear l y o n i n hi s incarc er ati on a nd , o n M ar ch 18, 20 08, al er ted federa l i m m i gr ati on offi ci al s to h is prese nce. I m m i gr ati on o ffi ci al s p laced a detainer on hi m and to ok hi m i nto custo dy upon his M ay 19, 20 08 re l eas e fro m St ate vi l l e. On M ay 23, 20 08, th e fed er algo vernm ent fi l ed a cr i m i nalco m pla i nt in the dist ri ct c ourt aga i nst M or enoP ad i l la a lleg in g illeg al re en tr y, an d on Ju n e 1 1, 20 08 , a federal gr and j ury i nd i cted hi m o n one count o fi l l ega l reen try i n violation of 8 U
. S. C
. § 1326(a) & (b)(2). A fter M oreno -Pad il la’s gu il ty p lea to the in d ic tm en t’s onl y c harg e o n Octobe r 1, 2008, a Pres entence Invest i gat i on Re po r t ( “P S R” ) was pr epa r ed us i ngthe 2 00 8 S enten cing Gu i del i nes in effect at the ti m e. T he PSR asse sse d M or eno-N o. 08

-4302 3 Pa di l l a ’ s b a s e o ffe ns e l e v e lat 8, p ur s ua ntt o U. S
. S
. G. § 2 L1
. 2 ( a )
. S i xt e e n l e v e l s we r e a dde d p ur s ua ntt o U. S
. S
. G. § 2L1
. 2(b) ( 1) ( A)( i i ) be ca us e M o r en o - Pa di l l a ha d pr i o rc o nvi cti ons that quali fi ed as “crim e[s ] o fvi ol ence. ” Thre e levels w ere su btrac ted i n recog nition of M oren o -Pad il la’s ac c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility an d tim ely n ot ifica tio nof h is i nt en t to e nt er a pl ea, U. S
. S
. G. § 3 E1. 1( a) & ( b) , l ea ving M or eno- Padil l a with an o ffense l eve lo f21
. The PSR’ s com pu tat i on o fM or eno- Padil l a’ s cr i m i nal hi sto ryr equi re s a m or e deta i l ed dis cussi on. M or enoPadil l a was co nvi cted o fag gr avated batt er y o n A pri l17, 1991
. H e w as sente nced to fi fty- f our m onths i n pri son for th atoffe n se on M ay 21 , 199 1
. In J u n e 1 99 1, w h ile i m p ris on ed for th e A p ril 19 91 offe n se , M or en o-P ad illa w as conv icted ofano therag gr avat ed batt er y o ffense. H e r ec ei ve d a se nt en ce o ffi fty
- o ne months f o rthe se c on d 19 91 co n vic tio n, setto ru nco n c u rre n tly w ith h is previ ous s entence
. M or en o-Pad i l l a was r el eas ed fro m p rison on Janu ary 24, 1 9 9 2 , and began a term of su p ervi sed paro l e. On M arch 28, 19 92, wh i l e he w as on par ol e, M or eno- Padil l a was ar re ste d and c h ar ged with yet anothe r agg ra vate d b att er y, thi s ti m e i n connect i on w ith a sh oo tin g in c id en t in C h ica go . H e w as re im p ris on ed in the I l l i noi s Departm ent o fCor re cti ons on S eptem ber4, 199 2
. He p l e a de d gui l ty t o the Mar c h 1 9 9 2 a g g r a v ate d batt er y o n N ove m ber2, 1992, and was sente nced to thi rtysi x m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. H e was r eleased fro m pri son on J un e 4 , 1 9 9 3 , r e s ume d pa r o l e , a nd wa s r e l e a s ed f ro m that supervi si on o n J une 5, 19 94. T h e p ar tie s a gr e e t h atth e Ju n e 1 99 3 re lea se d at e is accura te as to the N ove m ber 1992 convi ction . M or eno-4 N o. 08

-4302 Padil la in si sts thatthe J une 199 3 r el eas e date i s a ccurat e onlyas to the N ove m ber1992 c onvi cti on. The go vernm ent, on th e o th er h an d , claim s th atbe c au se M or en o-P ad illa w as on p ar ol e w hen h e com m i tte d the M ar ch 1992 o ffense, h is S ep te m b er 19 92 reim p ris on m en t s te m m ed , at le as t in part, fr om a re voca ti on o fhi s par ol e o n the 1991 co nvi ctio n s. It go es on to as se rtth atbe c a u se M or en o-P ad illa was no t r el ease d fr o m c o nfi ne m en t unt i lJ une 1 99 3, the J un e 1 9 9 3 r e l e a s e da t e i s a pp l i c ab l e t o a l l thr e e ag gr av at ed b a t t er y c on vic tio n s. T h e re lea se d at e a p p lica b le to th e 1 99 1 c on v i c t ion s is p ar tic u lar ly im p or ta n t in l i ght o fU
. S. S. G. § 4 A 1.2(e) ( 1) , wh i ch r est ri cts the r each o fthe PS R’ s cr i m i na lhi st o r y c al cul at i o n t o c o nv i ct i o ns i m posed ori ncarc er ati ons ser ved w i thi n fi ftee n yea rs o f a defendant’s co m m encem ent o fthe i ns ta nt o ffense. M or eno- Padil l a’ s instant offense, i l l ega lr eentry, was co m m en ce d i n J anua r y 2 00 8 when he c r o ss ed th e bor der i nto the Unite d Sta tes
. A r el eas e date pri orto J anuary19 93 f orthe 1991 co nvi cti ons w oul d t h us r ender th em i rrelevantto M oreno -Pad il la’s crim inal history ca l cul at i o n. The PS R c o nc l ude d tha t th e th ree 199 1- 92 c o nv i ct i o ns al lco unted f orcr i m i nalhi sto rypurposes . I t ca l cul ate d M or eno- Padil l a’ s cr i m i nalhi sto ryas f ol l ows:

• 3 points forthe fi rs t 1 991 agg ra vate d batt e r y c o nv i c t i o n , p u r s u a n t t o U. S
. S
. G. § 4A 1.2( k)(2) (B)(i );

• 3 poi nts f or the seco nd 1991 agg ra vate d ba tt e r y c o n v i c t i o n , pu r s ua nt t o U. S
. S
. G. § 4A 1.2( k)(2) (B)(i );N o. 08

-4302 5

• 3 po i nt s f o rthe 1 99 2 ag g r av at ed batte r y c o nviction, p urs ua ntto U
. S. S. G
. § 4A 1.2( e)(1) ;

• 8 po in ts f o rmis ce l l an eo us o th ero ffen se s, i ncludi ng3 f o rthe 2 00 8 DU Ic o nv i ct i o n, pur su an t to U
. S. S. G
. § 4A 1.1( a) & ( c);

• 3 points purs uant to U
. S. S. G . § 4A1. 1( d) & (e ) because M or eno- Padil l a w as ser vi ng a sent ence o fi m pr i so nm en t when he c o m m i tt ed th e i nsta nt o ffense. The PSR deter m i ned that M or eno- Padil l a had twenty cr i m i na lhi st o r y po i nt s, whi che as i l y pl ac ed hi m i n the h igh es t c rim in al h ist or y c at eg or y, ca te go ry V I. W i th a cri m i nalhi sto ry in c ategory VIand an o ffense l eve lo f21 , M or eno- Padil l a f aced a Gu i del i nes s entence r an g e o f7 7- 96 months
. In a s en ten ci ngmem o r an dum fi led p riorto his s e n t en cing h earing, M oreno -Pad il la’s counselr ais ed two obj ecti ons to the PS R’s Guidel i nes c alc u lat ion s. Firs t, h e a rg u ed th atM or en o-P ad illa sh o ul d ha ve r ec ei ve d f o urpo i nt s r athe r tha n s i x fo rthe 1991 co nvi cti ons because the sente nces w er e co ncurr ent. Se cond, he a rgued that the o ne poi nt added un der U
. S. S. G. § 4 A 1. 1(e) am ounted to i m perm i ssibl e doubl ecoun ti ng. M or eno- Padil l a a l so re quested thatthe dist ri ct co ur t co nside rthe 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 55 3( a) f ac to r s an d i ss ue hi m a sente n c e b el ow the r eco m m ended G uidel i nes r an g e. Addi ti o na l l y, he o bj ec te d t o the 1 6- l ev elc r i m e- ofvi ol ence enhancem ent b ecause o fi ts hars hness. At hi s se nt en cinghe ar i ng, M o r en o - Pa di l l a i nf o r m ed th e d istri ct cou rt that he w as d is s a t is fi ed w ith his cou ns el’ s6 N o. 08

-4302

se nt en cinga r g um en ts a nd req uest ed ne w co uns el
. The c ou rt decl ined to provi de M or eno- Padil l a with a ne w att orney b ut co nti nue d the hear i ng to per m i t M or enoPadil l a t o fi l e a pro se m em or andu m r ai si ng hi s desi re d sente nci n g ar gum ents. In that docum ent, wh i ch w as not p ro vid e d to th e g ov er n m en t u n til th e m or n in g of h is se nt en cinghe ar i ng, M o r en o - Pa di l l a as se r te d tha t th e PSR er re d w hen i t incl ud ed si x cr i m i nalhi sto rypoi nts f orhi s 1 991 aggra vated batt er y c onvi cti ons. H e cl ai m ed tha t he “ ne v e r ha d a ny pa r o l e he a r i ng o r r e v o c a t i o n of paro l e” i n connect i on w ith the 19 91 offenses , and, ther ef or e, the properr el eas e date forthem w as Ja n uary24, 19 92 , ren d er in g th em to o s ta le t o b e inc lu d ed inh is c rim inalhi sto rycal cul ati on. U nl i ke hi s a tto rney, wh o ar gued th a t th e 1 99 1 c on vic tio n s s h ou ld be inc lu d ed in t h e c rim ina lhi st o r y cal cul at i o n butco nt r ibut e fewe rtha n the PS Rre com m ended si x poi nts, M or eno- Padil l a want ed them c om p let ely rem ov ed from co n sid er a t i o n . H e a lso ch all enged the PSR’ s incl usi on o fthr ee poi nt s f orhi s 1 992 batt er y b ecause he was r el eas ed fro m pri son on Ju n e 3, 1993 , bar el y m or e than fi ftee n yea rs befo re hi s J une 11, 2008 i nd i ctm ent, and ask ed f or a “dow nw ar d dep ar ture ” beca us e the a ddi t i o n o fthr e e c r i mi na lh i s t o r y p o i nt s p urs ua ntto U
. S. S. G
. § 4A 1 .1 (d ) & ( e) in h is vi ew oversta ted hi s cr i m i nalhi sto ry . A t th e c on tin u ed se n te n c in g h ea rin g, M or en o-P ad illa an d hi s co uns ele m pha si ze d t he pa r o l e r ev o ca ti o n a r g ume n tMo r e n o - P a d i l l a ma d e i nh i s p r o s e me mo r a n d u m. M or eno- Padil l a’ s a tto rneyave rr ed that paro l e r evo cati on w i thout a hea ring a m ou nts t o a vi ol ati on o fdue proc ess . H e co nceded that he had n ot had an opp or tuni ty to re vi ewN o. 08

-4302 7

an y I ll inois Dep artm en t of C orrections record s to verify hi s cl i ent’ s a sse rt i on that no r evo cati on pro ceedi ng was conducted, bu t m ai ntai ned that att ributi on o fthe l ate 1992 i m pri sonm ent t i m e t o M or eno- Padil l a’ s 1 991 convi ctio n s c ou ld h av e re su lte d on ly fro m a n“a u to m at ic” p ar ole re voca ti on, thati s, on e im posed witho ut the re quis i te he ar i ngt o de te r m i ne the pr o pr i ety o fr ev o ca ti o n. T h e d i s t r ictco u rten ga ge d M or en o-P ad illa’s co u n se l in a c olloq u y a b ou t th e n ew line of ar gu m en t, bu t itu ltim ate l y r el i ed on the PSR a nd co ncl ud ed t h at the 1 993 re l eas e date was appli cabl e t o al lthr ee 1991

- 92 convi ctions. T h e d istri ct cou rt then noted M oreno -Pad il la’s unr el at ed a nd r el at i ve l y i nc o ns eque nt i alf ac tu alo bj ec ti o ns to the PS R, r ej ec te d hi s oth er G ui del i ne s ar g um en ts , a nd ado pte d the PS R’ s Gui del i ne s ca l cul at i o ns . The go ve r nm ent a ske d fo r a w i thi n-Gui del i nes sente nce, and M or enoPa di l l a wa s g i v e n the o pp o r tun i ty t o r a i s e h i s 1 8 U. S
. C. § 35 53 ( a) a r g um ents. Nei th erhe no rhi s co uns elb r o ught up hi s “ dow nw ard d ep ar ture ” r equest, tho ugh they ar gued that the 1 6- l eve lenhancem ent purs uant to U. S
. S
. G. § 2 L1. 2(b) ( 1) ( A) was t o o ha r sh
. W hi l e s e nte nc ingMo r e no - Pa di l l a, the dist ri ct c ourtnot ed as mi t i g a t i ngf a c t o r s the a g e o fMo r e no - Pa di l l a ’ s p ri or co nv i ct i o ns , hi s s ub st an ce abus e pr o bl ems, hi s st r o ng f am i l y ti es, hi s previ ous tes ti m ony aga i nst gang lea ders, an d the ne g at i ve i m pac t th ata l en gth y s en te nc e an d probabl e deporta ti on w oul d hav e on hi s aging p ar ents an d h i s tw o daughters
. H owever, i t a l so note d M or enoPa di l l a’ s twe nty c r i m i na lhi st o r y po i nt s, hi s l en gth y a nd continuous cr i m i nalhi sto rydating backto hi s t eenag e8 N o. 08

-4302 ye ar s, th e s er iou sn es s o f so m e o f h is p as t c on vic tio n s, h is tax del i nquency, and hi s g ener all ack ofga i nfulem p loym en t. Ba l an ci ng the se f ac to r s, the di st r i ctc o ur t co nclude d tha t i t woul d i m po se a wi th i n- Gui del i nes s en tence o fei ghty m onths, to be f ol l owed bythr ee ye ars o f supervi sed r el eas e. The di str i ct c ourtal so re com m ended thatM o r en o - Pa di l l a r ec ei ve s ubs ta nc e ab us e tr ea tment and agr eed to r eco m m end that he be i ncarc er ated near hi s f am i l y in Chicag o.
I I . Discussi on M o r e n o-P ad illa ar gu es th ath e re c eiv ed an ina p p ro p riate l y l engthy sente nce. H e advances tw o alt ernati ve theori es i n supp or t o fthi s a rgum ent. Fi rs t, he a rgues that th e di st r i ctc o ur t i nc o r r ec tly i nc l ude d s i x po i nt s f o rthe tw o 1991 ag gr avat ed batter y convi cti ons i n hi s cr i m i nal hi sto ryca l cul ati on. H e m ai ntai ns thathi s s entence s for th ose crim es en d ed w ith his Janu ary 24, 1992 rel ease, m ore thanfi fte eny ea r s be f o r e he c o m m i tt ed th e i ns ta nt offe n se , bec au se h is p ar ole w as n ev er rev ok ed an d h is re tu rn to Il lin ois D ep ar tm en t o f C or re c tio n s c u st od y in Se ptem ber19 92 w as sol el y r el ate d to hi s M ar ch 199 2 offense. S ec ond, he a rgues that the di str i ct c ourtf ai l ed to consi der tw o m er i tor i ous a rgum ents he m ade i n f avo r of a l o wers en te nc e. The fi rst a r g um en t he c l ai m s th e dist ric t co urt negl ecte d to consi der was thatthe add i ti on o fthr e e c r i mi na lh i s t o r y p o i nts p ur s ua ntt o U. S
. S
. G. § 4 A 1.1 (d ) & (e) re su lte d in a nov er st at em en t o f h is c rim inalhi sto ry . H e co ncedes that the addit i on o fthes e points w as l ega l l y c or re ct, but asser ts thathi s a rgum ent wasN o. 08

-4302 9

mer i t o r i o us n o ne the l e s s bec ause “ thi s wa s n o tthe ty pe of case the Com m i ssi on had i n m i nd ” when itenact ed U. S
. S
. G. § 4A1. 1 ( d) & ( e )
. Mo r e no - Pa di l l a a l s o c o nt e nd s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t f ai l ed to c o ns i derhi s ar g um en t th atU. S
. S
. G. § 2 L1. 2(b) ( 1) ( A)’ s 16

- l ev ele nha nc ement w as t oo har sh. H e furtherf aul ts i t forf ai l i ng to address hi s “ Kim b r ough

- type ar gum ent. ” Se eKi m b r ough v. U nited Sta tes , 55 2 U.S
. 85 ( 2007 )
. W e r evi ew ea ch ofM or enoPa di l l a’ s ar g um en ts i n tur n.
A . Si x Cr i m i nal H i st ory Poi nts f or19 91 Convict i ons M or en o-P ad illa ar gu es th atth e d ist r i c t co u rtsh ou ld have om i tt ed the two 199 1 a ggr avat ed batt er y c onvi ctio n s fro m h is c rim in al h ist or y c alc u lat ion be c au se h is i m pri son m en t e nd ed fi ftee n yea rs befor e he com m i tte d th e p r e s e n t o ffe n s e . He c o n t e n d s th a t h i s p a r o l e f o r t he 19 91 offens es was ne ve rr ev o k ed an d tha t any t i m e he ser v e d b e t we e n J a nu a r y 2 4 , 1 9 9 2 a nd hi s s e nt e nc i ngf or th e M ar ch 1 99 2 o ffen se was e xc l us i ve l y r el at ed to the 1992 o ffense. The di str i ct c ourtente rt ai ned M or enoPadil l a’ s e l eve nth-ho ur a rgum ents on thi s poi nt, r ej ecte d them , and adopted the PSR’ s ca l cul ati on o fhi s cr i m i nal hi st o r y . W e r ev i ew the di st r ict c o ur t’ s i nt er pr et at i o n a nd appli cati on o fthe Se n te n c i ng Guidel i nes de novo and i ts f actualfi nd i ngs forcl earer ror. U nit e d S t at e s v. Se ve rs on , 569 F.3d 683, 689 (7th Cir. 2009). U n d er U .S.S.G . § 4A 1.1 (a), a c rim in al d e f e n d an t is ass igned thr ee cri m i nalhi sto rypoi nts forea ch pri or se nt en ce o fi m pr i so nm en t ex ce eding th i r te enmonths
. The tem pora lr each o fU
. S. S. G. § 4 A 1. 1( a) i s l i m i ted to pri or10 N o. 08

-4302

se nt en ce s i m po se d o rs er ve d w ithin fi fte eny ea r s o fthe defe nd ant’ s co m m en cem ent o fthe offense f orwh i ch h e o r sh e is p re se n tly b e i n g se n te n c ed
. SeeU. S
. S
. G. § 4 A 1.2 (e)(1 ). I f a d efe n d an t h as se r v e d tim e fo r a p ar ole re vo c at ion, th e d at e o f las t re lea se from co n fin e m en t is the da t e thatc o nt r o l s f o rthe p ur po s e s o fU. S
. S
. G. § 4 A 1.2 (e)(1 ). See U
. S. S
. G. § 4 A1. 2( k ) ( 2) ( B) ( i )
. I fa de fen dant’s paro l e was notr evo ked, he c ould n ot have se r v e d t i me f o r a pa r o l e r e v o c a t i o n, a nd hi s da t e o fl ast re l eas e fro m co nfinem ent w oul d be that a sso ci ate d wi ththe t er m i na ti o n o fhi s i nc ar ce r at i o n. For M or eno- Padil l a, such a fi nd i ng would m ean that hi s co nfinem ent forthe 1991 ag gr avat ed bat ter i es ended i n J anuary19 92

— si xteen y ear s be f or e hi s pre sent offense

— and that hi s 1 991 convi cti ons ar e be yond the re ach ofU
. S. S. G. § 4 A 1. 1( a) and cannot contribute to hi s a ccu m u la t ion of crim inal history point s. T ha t is th e very conte nti on M or eno- Padil l a m ake s. M or eno- Padil l a does notal l ege thatthe re voca ti on p ro c es s h e re c e ive d w as co n st itu tio n ally d efic ien t. (H is counsel’s ar gum ent a t s entencing m enti oned an abuse ofdue proc ess , and hi s a pp el l ate br i ef s co ntai n a t runcate d disc ussi on of the par ol e r evo cati on due pro cess r equi re m en ts f o r m ul at ed i n M o r rissey v. B rew er, 40 8 U.S
. 47 1 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , b uth e i s n o ts ub s t a nti v e l y c o nt e s t i ngthe p ro ced u ra l ad eq u ac y of t h e I llin ois p ar ole rev oc at ion p ro c es s.) I nstea d, he i s e ffecti vel y c h all enging the r eas onabl eness ofth e di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s fi nd ing tha t hi s pa r o l e o n the 19 91 convi cti ons w as not re vok ed. In shor t, he di spu tes whethe rr ev o cationt o o kpl ac e ata l li n h i s ca se . W e co n-N o. 08

-4302 11 si der thi s ar gum ent because i t i s one conte sting the ex istence o fa hi sto ric al f act, nota col l ate ra lchal l enge to a p rior rev oc at ion p ro c ee d in g. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. La l onde, 50 9 F
. 3d 75 0, 7 67( 6th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( “[A ] d efen dan t i n a sente nci ng pro ceedi ng m ay not col l ate ra l l y c hal l enge the use o fpri orco nvi cti ons orparo l e r evo cati ons f or p u rp os es of cr im in al h i st or y c alc u lat ion u n les s th e c h all enge i s ba sed upon an al l ege d vi ol ati on o ft he r i ght t o c ou n se l.”); cf. U nited S ta tes v . Reed, 94 F. 3d 341, 343- 44 ( 7th C i r . 19 96 ) (en te rt ain in g d efe n d an t’s arg u m en t th ath is p robation w as ne ver revoked ). I n M or eno- Pa d il l a’ s v i ew , he s houl d not hav e t o prove th athi s par o l e was no t r ev o k ed. Ins te ad, he a ss erts, the g overn m en t m us t ca r r y the b ur deno fde m o ns tr at i ng th ath is p a r o l e w as rev ok ed . H e p rim ar ily re st s th is ar gu m en t o nan E igh th C irc u it c as e, U nit e d S t at e s v. Covi ngt on , 1 33 F
. 3d 63 9, 6 43 (8th C ir
. 1 99 8) , i n whi chthe defe nd ant s uccess fully a rgued th at he sho uld notbe consi dered a c ar eero ffender because hi s PS R did not in d ica te w h et h er h e h ad be en im p ris o n ed for a p ar ole revoca tion or for a new , non viol en t offen se. T he cou rt r e man de d C o v i ng t o n’ s c a s e f o rr e s e nt e nc i ngb e cause “[ o ] nc e a defen dan t o bj ec ts t o a f ac tu ala l l eg at i o n in a prese ntence re port ” a nd the court h as chose n to m ake a fi n d in g on the m att er, “the go vernm ent m ust intro
du ce e vi dence suffi ci ent t o convince the Courtbya prepon d er an ce o fthe evi dence thatthe f act i n questi on exi sts
. ” Covi ngt on , 133 F.3d at 643 ( qu otations om itte d ). W e r eco gni ze that Covi ngt on i s g oo d l aw i n the Eighth C ircuit, b u t in our circuit, th e all ocat ion of bu rd en s is d if

fer en t. S e e At c h i s o n , To p e k a & S a n t a F e Ry
. Co. v. Pe ña , 4412 N o. 08

-4302 F. 3d 437, 44 3 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( en ba n c ) ( “Our duty i s t o in d ependentl y deci de ouro w n case s, wh i ch so m eti m es re sul ts i n dis agr eem en ts w i th deci si ons ofthe othe r c irc u its .”), af

f ’ d s ub no m . B hd
. o

f L o co m o tiv e E ng ’rs v. Atc hi s on, Tope ka & Sant a F eR. R. Co. , 516 U
. S. 152 (1996). W e hav e l ong hel d that di strict courts m ay re l y o n i nfo r mat i o n c o nt ai ned i n a P S R s o l o nga s i ti s we l l

- s up p or te d an d ap p ea rs relia b le. See U nited Sta tes v. Heck el, 570 F. 3d 791, 79 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa l i nas , 36 5 F .3d 58 2, 58 7 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M us t re ad, 42 F .3d 1097, 1101-02 (7th C ir. 1994). A nd w he n a cou rt r eli es on a PS R, “ i t i s th e defen dan t’ s ta skt o s ho w the tr i alj udg e th atthe fact s con ta i ne d i n the PS R a r e i na cc ura te. ” M ustread, 4 2 F
. 3d at1 10 1- 02
. Tha t i s, he o rs he m ust pro du ce s om e e vi dence that“ca l l s the r el i abi l i ty or correctn ess of the all eged f acts i nt o qu estion” ; a “bare d en ial” is n o t en ou gh
. Id. at 1102 ( qu otation om itted ). Only w hen a defe nd ant’ s obj ecti on creat es re aldoubt a s to the r el i ab i l i tyo fthe i nf o r m at ion i n the PS R do es the g o ve r nm en t ha ve th e bur den o f i nde pen den tly de m o nst ra tin g th e a c c u ra c y of t h e in for m at ion
. See id
. Of c ours e, th er e a re so m e s itu at ion s in w h ich th is ge n er al ru le do es no t apply, s ucha s wher e th e PS R i ts el fc o nt ains nothi ng but a “ naked o r unsup port ed char ge, ” id. (quotati o n o m i tt ed) , o r“ o m i ts c r uci ali nf o r m at i o n, l ea ving am biguity on th e face o f th at d ocu m en t abou t the natu re ofa defe n dant’s st ate se ntences , ” U nite d States v. M cNei l , 573 F. 3d 479, 48 3 (7th C i r. 20 09)
. Thi s i s no t o ne o ftho se case s, however, so i t was M or eno- Padil l a, notthe gov ernm en t, who b o r e th e bur deno fde m o ns tr at i ngtheN o. 08

-4302 13 inacc ura cy of the PSR
. M o r e no-P ad il la f ail ed to carry that burden, bo th her e a nd befor e the di str i ct c ourt
. I t i s t rue th at the tw enty- fi ve- page PS R prepar ed f or M or eno- Padil l a’ s s entencing does notl i st a s peci fi c date ofparo l e r evo cati on o r detai l s about any r evo cati on pr o ce dur es , b utthe r e i s no do ubttha t th e di st r i ctc ou rt w as wa r r a nt e d in r e l y i ngo n i t s c o ns i s t e nts t a t e men ts that M or eno- Padil l a was r el eas ed fr om custo dy fro m th e 1991 an d 1992 offenses on Jun e 4 , 1 9 9 3
. Th e PSR att ributed thr ee cri m i nalhi sto rypoi nts t o each ofM or enoPadil l a’ s 1 991 batt er y c onvi cti ons w i th a re fer ence to U
. S. S. G. § 4 A 1. 2( k) ( 2) ( B)( i ) , u n equi voca l l y i m ply i ng tha t re voca ti on o ccurr ed. I t a ccom pa n ied thes e points with th e explanat i on that “ i n re fer ence to a r evo cati on o f paro l e, the date o fl astr el eas e fro m i ncarc er ati on o n su ch a sente nc e is us ed to com p ut e crim inal history po i nt s. The de fen dan t was l as t r el ea se d fr o m i ncarcer ati on in the [ fi rst 1 991] cas e o n J une 4, 19 93; ther ef or e, 3 p oi nts a r e a dde d. ” T he P S R fur the rs t a t e d tha tMo r e no P ad ill a’ s 1 992 offense “l ed to hi s no t be i ng di schar ged fro m p ar ole [on t h e 19 91 co n vic tio n s] u n til Ju n e 5 , 199 4.” It als o st at ed m u ltip le tim es th at M or en o-P ad illa w a s in th e cus to dy o fthe I l l i no i s Depa r tmento fCo r r ec tions beginning Se ptem ber4, 19 92, two m onths befo rehe ple aded gui l ty to the 1 992 offe nse, a f act that he does not c on te stan d on e fro m w h ich th e d ist ric t co u rtco u ld re as on ab ly in fer th ath e w as s e r v in g t im e d u e t o a p ar ole re vo cati on a s o fthe date o fhi s r etur n to the I l l i noi s Departm ent o fCor re cti ons. M or eov er, the Se ptem ber 4, 19 92 i m pr i so nm en t was i nc l ude d a s par t an d pa r ce l ofthe en tr i es f o rthe 1 99 1 ag g r av at ed ba tt ery c o nv i ct i o ns , a nd14 N o. 08

-4302 i t was co nspicuo usl y absent fro m the entr y forthe 1992 c onvict i on with w hi ch M or eno- Padil l a a sse rt s i t was c o nn e c t e d. I n re sponse to the PS R’s num er ous ind i cati ons that a re vo c at ion oc c u rr ed , M or en o-P ad illa offe re d on ly h is u n su p p or te d rec olle c tio nth ath e n ev er rec eiv ed a p ar ole r ev o ca ti o n h ea r i nga nd un dev el o ped al l eg at i o ns tha t th e I l l i no i s Depa r tmento f Co r r ec ti o ns pr o vi ded er r o ne o us i nf o r m at i o n t o the pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce rwho pr epare d the PSR. W e r eco gnize that i t ca n be diffi cul t t o prove a ne gative, bu t M oreno -Pad il la m a d e li ttle, i f an y, effor t to do s o h e r e . Hi s c l a i m t ha th i s p a r o l e wa s n e ver revoked am ou nt s m erely to a “ba r e d e n ial” of th e sort d i smi ss ed i n M us t re ad
. B y f a i l i n gt o p o i n tt o s o me th i ng m or e, su c has d oc u m en ta ry ev id en c e, see Heck el, 570 F. 3d at 796, o r an i nherentco ntra dict i on in t est i m ony used to d et er m in e h is offe n se lev el, se e U nite d States v. Acosta , 85 F. 3d 275, 28 3 (7t h C i r. 19 96) , M or eno- Padil l a has f ai l ed to

“ c a l l [ ] the r e l i ab i l i ty o rc o r r e c tne s s o fthe a l l e g e d f acts i nto questio n , ” M us t re ad, 42 F. 3d at 1102 ( quotati on o m i tted ). Because M or eno- Padil l a’ s a rgum ents am ount m er el y t o “bar e deni al s” ofthe PSR’ s a ccurac y a nd fai lto cal li nto questi on the PSR’ s r el i ab ility, we cannot concl ud e that th e di st r i ctc o ur t cl ea r l y e r r ed i n r ely i ngo n the PSR
. W e the refore hold th at th e six po ints w ere p rop erly includ ed i n M oreno -Pad ill a’s crim inal history ca l cul at i o n.N o. 08

-4302 15 B. F ailure to C on sid er A rgum en ts M or eno- Padil l a next ar gues that the di str i ct cou rter re d by f ai li ng to co nsi der tw o ofhi s a rgum ents f ora l ower sen ten ce. Th e fi rst argu m e n t he alleges the d istri ct cou rt f ai l ed to c o ns i deri s th at he sh o ul d ha ve r ec ei ve d a “ do wnw ard de p artu re” bec au se th e three crim inal history poi nts he r ec eived pu rs uant to U
. S. S. G. § 4 A 1. 1 ( d) & (e ) re sul ted in an o ver state m en t o fhi s cr i m i nalhi sto ry . H e a l so al l ege s that i t f ai l ed to c on si der hi s r equest f or a l o we rs e nt e nc e i n l i g hto fthe h a r s hn e s s o fU. S. S
. G. § 2 L1. 2(b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) ’ s 1 6- l eve l “cr i m e o fvi ol ence” enhancem ent. O u rr e v i e w o fs e n t e n c i n gd ec i si o n s p r o c e e d s i nt wo st ep s. Se eU ni t e d St at e s v. Jac ks on , 547 F. 3d 786, 792 (7th Cir. 2008 )
. Fi rs t, w e e nsure that the di str i ct c ourtdi d not com m i t a ny “s i gni fi can t pr oce du ra ler ro r, ” e xam ple s of w h ich inc lu d e fa ilin g t o c alc u lat e, or i m p r o p er ly c alcul at i ng, the a p p l i cabl e Gui del i ne s r an g e; t r ea tingthe Gu i del i nes a s m anda to ry ; o r f ai l i ng to co nsi der the 18 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a) fa c to rs . Id. ; see also G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 552 U
. S. 3 8, 49- 50 ( 2007 ) ( expla i ni ng the pro cedures a co ur t m us t f o l l o w dur i ngs en ten cing )
. Onc e we a r e co nvi nced th at the s entencing j ud ge f ol l owed co rr ect proce du re , we then co nsi der the subst anti ve re aso nabl eness o f th e s en te n c e. Jac ks on , 54 7 F
. 3d at 792. W e presum e that w ith in -G u id el i n e s s en te n c es are rea so n ab le, U nited Sta tes v. M ykyt i uk, 4 1 5 F
. 3 d 6 0 6 , 6 0 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) , a n d we re vie w se n te n c es on ly for ab u se of d isc re tio n, s e e U nited Sta tes v. Turn er, 569 F.3d 637, 640 (7th C ir. 2009).16 N o. 08

-4302 1 . U. S. S. G. § 4 A1 . 1 ( d) & ( e ) a nd O ve rsta tem en t of C rim in al H is tory P u r s u a n tt o U. S
. S
. G. § 4 A1
. 1 ( d ) , a c r i mi n a ld e fe n d an t re cei ves tw o cri m i nal hi sto ry poi nts i fhe o r she “ com m i tted the i nstant offense w h ile u n der a ny cr i m i nalj usti ce sente nce, i ncl ud i ng . . . im p ri sonm ent. ” Purs uant to U
. S. S
. G. § 4 A1. 1( e) , a s i st erpr o vi si o n, a de fen dan t r ec ei ve s ana ddi ti o na lc r i m i na lhi st o r y po i nti fhe o rs he co m m i tt ed th e i ns ta nt offen se whi l e i m pr i so ne d o n a s e nt e nc e l o ng e rtha n thi r t e e n mon ths a nd h a s a l r e a dy re c eive d tw o poi nts under U
. S. S. G. § 4 A 1. 1( d). Because M or eno- Padil l a was se rv i ng an ei ghtee n-m onth sen tence i ns t a t e p r i s o nwhe nh e w a s d i s c o v e r e d b y fe d e r a li mm i gr ati on offi ci al s, he r ecei ved poi nts purs uant to bo th th e s e p r o v i s i o ns . He a s s e r t s tha th e wa s s i mpl y “ f o un d” by im m igrati on offi cials w hile h e w as in prison f or a d iffer en t o ffen se an d d id n o t affirm at ive ly c om m it illeg al re en tr y w h ile in p ris on . O n c e he en te re d th e Illino is pri son sys tem , he was no l onge r abl e t o bring hi s i l l ega l pr es en ce i n the Uni te d S ta tes to a n e nd. The r efo r e, he con ten d s, th e ad d iti on of thes e three crim inal h is tory p oin ts ov er st at ed h is c r i m i n al h ist or y a n d ren d er ed h is se n te n c e e x c es siv e. In n otex p lici t ly a d d re ss in g th is 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) ar gum ent, M or eno- Padil l a a rgues, the di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d. M oreno -Pad il la does n ot d ispu te th at his illegal reentry o ffe ns e wa s t e c hn i c a l l y wi thin the b r o a d s c o pe o fU. S
. S
. G. § 4 A 1. 1( d) & (e ) , and f orgo od r eas on. Ever y c i rcui t that h a s ex am in ed th e is su e h as ap p ro ac h ed it th atw ay . See U ni t e d S ta tes v
. So pon- Le on , 32 8 F
. A pp ’ x 181 , 18 2 ( 4thN o. 08

-4302 17 C ir. 2009) (per cu riam ) (un p ub lis he d ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. He r nan dez- Nor i ega , 544 F.3d 1141 , 1 142-43 (10th C ir. 2008); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Coe ur, 19 6 F
. 3d 1344, 13 46 (11 th Ci r. 19 99) (p er cu ria m ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa nt ana- Castel l ano , 74 F. 3d 59 3, 59 8 (5th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); cf. U nited Sta tes v. C a no -R o drig uez , 5 5 2 F
. 3 d 6 3 7, 6 3 9 ( 7 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( al l o wi ng co uns elt o wi thd r aw b ec au se “ i t woul d b e fr i vo l o us f o r[ th e d e fe n d a n t ] t o c l a i m th a tth e d i s t r i c t co ur t c o mm i tte d plain er ro r by i m posi ng the poi nts [pu rs uant to U
. S. S. G. § 4 A 1. 1( d)] es peci al l y s i nce there i s no ev i dence that federa lautho ri ti es l earne d abo ut hi s i m m i gr ati on s t a tu s b efo re h is s ta te im p ris on m en t b eg an ”); U nited St at e s v. Al b a- Esq ue da , 45 7 F
. 3d 859, 86 0- 61 ( 8th Ci r. 20 06) ( “The cr i m e o fr eentry under § 1 326 i s a n ongo i ng o ffense that continues unti la perso n i s di sco ver ed by author i ti es. Acco r di ng l y, Alba

- Esque da was en gag ed i n ‘ r el ev an t c on d u c t’ t h e e n tir e t im e h e w as in t h e U n ite d Sta te s u n til he was dis cove re d. Because som e ofthi s r el evantco nd uct occur re d w hi l e Alba

- Esqu eda w as i n pri son and on p r o b a t i o n, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o r r e c t l y a d d e d th e t wo cri m i nalhi sto rypoi nts purs uant to § 4A 1.1( d). ” ( ci tat i on o m i tt ed )); U nited Sta tes v. Fig uereo , 4 0 4 F
. 3 d 5 3 7, 5 40- 41 ( 1stCi r. 20 05) ( concl ud i ng tha t the di str i ct c ourtdi d not pla i nl y e rri n apply i ng the § 4A 1. 1( d) en hancem ent t o a d efe n d an t w h o w a s f ou n d in t h e U n ite d Sta te s w h ile im p risoned ). N or does he su ggest th at im m igr ation offi cials w ere aw ar e of hi s i l l ega lpre sence pri orto hi s DU Ii ncarc er ati on a nd wait ed to c h ar ge hi m with i l l ega lr eentry s o as t o a s s e s s h i m t hr e e e xt r a c r i mi na lh i s tor y p o i nt s . Ins t e a d,18 N o. 08

-4302 h e a ss er ts th ata c as e like h i s , inw h ich h e w as sim p ly “f o und” whi l e i n s ta te c us to dy, s ho ul d no t be t r ea te d the sam e a s o ne in w hi ch a defe n d ant a cti vel y c om m i ts a cr i m e l i k e as sa ul t whi l e i nc ar ce r at ed. H e d i r ec ts o ur att enti on t o U ni t e d St at e s v. Gal van- Zer m e no , 52 F. S up p. 2d 922, 92 4 ( C.D. I l l
. 19 99) , wh er ei n t h e dist ri ct j ud ge as se r te d tha t “[ t] hi s so r t o f ci r cumst an ce sh o ul d be di st i ngui shed fro m cas es w here a perso n acti vel y com m its a cri m i na l a ct whil e i m pri sone d.” H e a l so poi nts t o U nited Sta tes v. C o ntrera s-Herna nd ez , 27 7F
. S up p. 2 d 9 5 2 , 9 5 5 ( E. D. W i s. 2 00 3), f ores senti al l y the sa m e s up port
. H e a rgues that these case s dem onst ra te that hi s ar gum ent, ra i sed o n l y i na s i n g l e pa r a g r a p hi nh i s p r o s e me mo r a n d u m, w as su ffici en tly subs tan t ial to have w arran ted m ore ove rtco nsi derat i on bythe dist ri ct c ourt
. W e di sag re e. Di s t r i c tc o ur t s a r e r e qu i r e d t o r e v i e w th e 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c t o r s a n d p r o v i de a re co r d f o ru s t o r e v i e w, but the y a re notr equi re d to com prehensi vel y di scuss ea c hof th e fa c to rs . U ni t ed Sta te s v. Vi l l egas -M i randa , 57 9 F.3 d 798, 80 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. They m ust “ co nsid ert he f a c t o r s l i s t e d in § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a nd a dd ress e xp l i c i t l y any s ubst an tia l arg u m en ts ” d efe n d an ts m ak e. U nited St at e s v. M a rtinez , 520 F.3d 74 9, 75 3 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); see also Villeg a sM i randa , 579 F.3d at 801 ( not ing tha t a sent en c ing cou rt m ust “add re ss al lo fa defe nd ant’ s pr i nc ipal ar gum ents that ar e no t s o w eakas to n ot m er i t di scussi on” ( quotati on om itt ed ) (em p h as is a d d ed )). In d ee d , w e h av e h eld that “the sente n c i ng j ud ge can di scuss the a pp l i cati on ofthe sta tutory f acto rs t o the defendant not i n check l i st f as hi o n b uti ns te ad i n the f o r m o fa n a dequa te s ta te m en tN o. 08

-4302 19 of the j ud ge’s reason s, con sisten t w it h se ction 355 3(a), f o rthink i ngthe s e nt e nc e tha th e h a s s e l e c t e d i s i nd eed appropri ate f or the parti cul ar d efe nd ant. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. D e an , 414 F.3d 725 , 729 (7th C ir. 2005). T o that end , there i s no r equi re m ent that a dist ri ct c ourtexte nsi vel y a dd re ss no n- pr i nc i pala r g um en ts , or “sto cka r g um en ts tha t se nte nc i ngc o ur ts s ee r o ut i ne l y, ” i nc l ud ing “h o w [ a defen dan t’ s] c r i m i na lhi st o r y c at ego r y o ve r - r epr es en ts the s e r i o us ne s s o fh i s p r i o rc o nv i c t i o n. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tahz ib , 513 F.3d 692 , 695 (7th C ir. 2008). The cour t co m port ed w i th the se re quir em ents des pit e i ts f ai l ur e to e xpl i ci tly ment i o n Mor en o - Pa di l l a’ s “do wnw ar d depar ture ” ar gum ent. The concept of “ departure s” has be com e obso l ete i n ourpost
- Book ers entencing fra m ewor k, s o s ucha r g um en ts a r e no w place d i n the c o nt ex t of th e 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a) fa c to rs . Turn er, 569 F. 3d at 64 0; U nited St at e s v. M i randa , 505 F.3d 785 , 792 (7th C ir. 20 07 )
. M o r en o -Pad i l l a’ s ar g um en t ab o utthe o ve r st at i ng effects of U
. S
. S
. G. § 4 A1. 1( d) & ( e) , b ur i ed i n a n e l ev en th

ho urmem o r an dum a nd no t r ai se d b y a nyo ne a t th e sen ten cing h earing, inc lud ing M oreno -Pad il la him self, cannot f ai rly b e co nsi dered a “pri nci pal ” a rg u m en t. In d ee d , th i s a r g u m en t w ou ld be c om e s ign ifica n t o n ly if M or eno- Padil l a’ s pre vi ous a rgum en t regar ding hi s l ack ofparo l e r evo cati on were succes sful: the thre e cr i m i nal h ist or y p oin ts from U .S .S .G . § 4A 1.1 (d ) & (e) w ou ld on ly p lace M oreno -Pad il la in an overstate d crim inal history c a t eg or y if th e o th er six w er e n otinc lu d ed in t h e c alc u lat ion
. C

f. U nited Sta tes v. P ulley , ___ F .3d ___, N o. 08

- 3363 , 20 10 W L 537574, at* 5 n. 3 ( 7t h C ir. F eb. 17, 20 10)20 N o. 08

-4302 ( no tingtha t “the r e i s no sepa r at e ne ed to a ddr es s th e d e fe nd an t’s position w ithin a p articu lar history cat egory se par at ely fr o m the i ndi vi dual i ze d a ss es smento fthe defe nd ant”)
. A t wors t, the i m proper inclusi on o fthes e poi nts o r f ai l ure to consi der a ny o ver sta ti ng e ffec t they h av e w o u ld be h ar m les s e rro r, s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Abb as , 560 F.3d 660, 666-67 (7th C ir . 2 0 09), f or even they w ere rem oved from th e calcu lation of his crim inal h istory sco re the other sev entee n cri m i nalhi sto rypoi nts M or enoP ad illa h as am as se d w ou ld st ill p lac e him s q u ar ely w ith incr im in al h ist or y c at eg or y V I, see U
. S. S en te nc i ng Gui del i ne s M anua lCh. 5 , pt
. A, a t 39 6 ( 200 8) ( i ndi ca ting th at offen d ers w ith th irteen or m ore crim inal history p oints falli nt o Ca tegory V I ). M o r eo ve r, th e r ec o r d i ndi ca te s th at th e di st r i ctcou rt gave m eani ngful co nsi derat i on t o the v ar i ous § 35 53( a) subsect i ons i m pli cate d by thi s a rgum en t. T he co urt acknowle dged M or eno- Padil l a’ s a rgum ent that “ th e guidel i ne se ntence i s unduly h ar sh i n thi s ca se” and expla ined th a t i t t o o wa s “ c o n c e r n e d wi th th e l e n g th o ft he s en tence” the Guidel i nes pr escr ibed f orM or eno- Padil l a. I t exp lai ne d t h a t the re “reall y i sn ’t m uc h in h is history th atmil i ta te s ag ains t a se nt ence th at ’ s f ai r l y s ev er e, ” an d deter m i ned, afterr eco gnizin g i ts disc re ti on t o devi ate fro m the Gu i del i nes, that“a gui del i ne se ntence i s a pp ro pr i at e f o r thi s defen dan t” “ f o ra l lthe r ea so ns tha t th e g ui del i ne s th emse l ve s ac k no wl edg e an d r ec o g ni ze . ” The dist ri ct cour t w as not re quir ed to spel l out its as ses sm ent o fea ch f acto r, part i cul ar ly as to non- pri nci pal ar gum ents such as thi s on e; i t s uffi ci entl y dem onst ra tedN o. 08

-4302 21 i t s c o ns i de r a t i o n o fMo r e no - Pa di l l a ’ s c o nc e r ns . A d i str i ct co ur t i s ne ve r r equi r ed to ac ce pt a defen dan t’ s a r g um en ts for a low er se n te n c e, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fi l ipi ak, 46 6 F.3d 582 , 583 (7th C ir. 2006), an d th e d istri ct cou rt here wentf are nou gh i n c o ns i der i ngM o r en o - Pa di l l a’ s ar g um ent. W e not e th atwe ag r ee wi thM o r en o - Pa di l l a to the extent that he ar gues the dist ric t c ou rt couldhave gi ven m or e a tte nti on t o hi s a rgum ent. T h e Gu i del i nes a re now ad vis or y, U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 5 43 U. S
. 22 0 ( 20 05 ) , a nd d ist ric t c ou rt s a re fr e e t o d ev iat e fro m th em atth eir d isc re tio n, see U nited Sta tes v. C o rner, ___ F
. 3d ___, N o. 08

- 1033 , 2010 W L 935754, at * 3 ( 7th Ci r. M ar . 17, 20 10) ( en banc)
. Fo r i nstance , the dist ric t co urt m i ght ha ve adopted M or eno- Pa dil l a’ s a rgum ent o n pol i cy gr ounds. Bu t a di str i ct c ourti s nev err equi re d to devi ate fro m the Gui del i nes; j ud i ci aldi scr eti on i s a two- w ay str eet
. See id
. ( “ No j ud g e i s re q ui re d to sente nce atvar i ance with a G uid eline , bu t every j ud ge is at liberty to d o so .” ). H er e, the di str i ctc o ur t pl ainl y e xe r ci se d i ts di sc r et i o n, and i t co ncl u d ed that the Gui del i nes s entence , wh i ch M or en o-P ad illa inth is re sp ec t c on c ed ed w as co rre c tly cal cul ate d, w as appropri ate
.
2 . S i x t e e n - L e v e l E n h a n c e me n tP u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G.

§ 2L1 . 2(b )( 1)(A )( ii ) M or eno- Padil l a’ s fi nalar gum ent i s that the di str i ct cour t f ai l ed to con sid er hi s co ntenti on that the 16

- l eve l en h an c em en t p ro vid ed u n d er U .S.S.G . § 2L 1.2 (b )(1) (A )(ii)22 N o. 08

-4302 i s t oo har sh. U
. S. S. G. § 2 L1. 2(b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) pro vi des a 16- l eve li ncre ase to the base l eve lo f8 f orthe offense of unlawful l y e nterin g or r em aini ng in the U ni ted S tat es w h en th e d efe n d an t h as a c on vi c t ion for a felon y th atis a “c r i m e ofv i o l en ce . ” M o r en o - Pa di l l a cl ai m s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t d i d no t co ns i derhi s ar g um en t, a nd mai nta in s th atit w as n otfrivo lou s b ec au se a sc h ola rly art icle dec r ee d the 1 6- l ev eli nc r ea se a n a no m aly wi th i n the Gu i del i nes. H e a l so i nvoke s K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 552 U
. S. 8 5 (20 07), as ser ti ng tha t the di str i ct c ourtwas re qu ire d to consi der hi s a rgum ent a nd sho uld have var i ed hi s s entence dow nw ar d i n l i ght o fi t. M oreno -Pad il la’s con ten tion th at th e d istri ct cou rt neg l e c t e d t o a ddr e s s h i s a r g ume nti s u na v a i l i ngb e c a use th e r ec o r d pl ainl y show s tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t di d. The di s t r i c tc o ur ts t a t e d: A nd Iam a lso con scious of th e fact tha t w e are l oo ki ng atthis case, in som e r espect s, as tr i gge re d by th e co nduc t M r . M o r en o e ng ag ed i n many yea rs ag o. That’ s th e se nse in w hi ch Ithink [ M or enoPadi l l a’ s co uns el ] i s ar g ui ngtha t th e g ui del i ne se nt e nc e i s u nd uly h a r s h i n thi s c a s e b e c ause i t r efl ects

— ori t’ s ba sed i n partu p on the f act that M r . M o r en o was c o nv i ct ed y ea r s a go ofv i o l en t offe n se s. The g u i d e l i n e c a l c u l a t i o ni nth i s c a s e d o e s c o nta in

— do e s i nc l ud e

— d oe s re flec t a rela tio n sh ip be twe ena l ong - ag o o ffen se a nd wha t br i ng s us here to day.N o. 08

-4302 23 A t the sa m e t i m e, however, the 20 cri m i nal hi sto rypoi nts that M r. M or eno has e arn ed r el ate s [ si c] notj ust t o the o ffense conduct l ong ago but a tot alo f28

— a nu m b er ofco nvi cti ons and 28 ar r es ts , 1 5 [of ] w hi chr es ul te d i n c o nv i ct i o ns a nd f o u r o f th o s e wh i c h i n v o l v e d th e u s e o f a f i r e a r m. I ndi vi dual s wer e sh o t an d i nj ur ed i n th o se offenses . I t i s to M r. M or eno’ s cr edi t that he tes ti fi ed i n at lea ston e in c id en t. B u t h e h im se lf w as inv olv ed in gun -viol ence i nci dents, and thi s i s the r eas on that he i s l o o k i n ga tth a tv e r y s i g n i fi c a n t1 6

- p o i nt enhancem ent.

. . . . A nd Ihave to be concerned w i th the l ength of the s entence , noto nl y the i m pact it w il lhave o n hi s f am i ly, s om e o fwh om Iundersta nd ar e pr ep ared to m ove to M ex ico to be w ith him , b ut there i s a l so the f act that previ ous c ustody sente n ces h a v e n o ta p p ar en tly h a d th e k i n d o fi mpa c twe ho ped th eywoul d o n Mr. M o r en o . The f ac t th athe h as pre vi ousl y b een in custo dy on a num bero f occa si ons didn’tst op hi m fro m co m i ng backo nce. A n d t hat’ s o ne o fthe re aso ns thatthe sente nce gui del i ne he i s l oo ki ng at, the gui del i ne se n te n ce he r e , i s s o s t e e p. As i s ev i den t fr o m the s en te nc i nghe ar i ngt r an sc r i pt, the dist ri ct c ourtdi d a tho ro u gh job o faddress i ng M or enoPad illa’ s co ncer ns abo ut the hars hness o fthe 16- l eve l24 N o. 08

-4302

enha nc ement
. The c o ur t ac k no wl edg ed th e ar gu m en t h e w as m aking and expl ai ned w hy i t was unpersuas i ve i n l i ght o fh i s cr i m i nalhi sto ry . A ny furtherexposi ti on on the subj ect w oul d have be en unnecess ar y. M oreno -Pad il la’s cu rsory i nv ocat ion of Kim b r ough is equa l l y wi th o utmer i t. He a r g ue s th atthe S en ten cing Com m i ssi on fai l ed to fulfi l li ts “i nsti tuti onalr ol e” w hen i t pr es cr ibe d the 1 6- l evel enha nc ement
. He po i nt s o ut that the e nha n cem ent doe s no t t ake acc ount o fem pir i cal data, nati onal ex p er i ence, o r i npu t fro m a ra nge o f ex p er ts in t h e fie ld
. Se eKi m b r ough , 5 5 2 U. S
. a t1 0 9
. U. S
. S
. G. § 2 L1. 2(b) ( 1) ( A ) h as b een cri ti ci zed on that basi s be f or e. SeeU nited S tates v. A guilar- H uer ta , 57 6 F
. 3d 365, 36 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( co l l ec tingc ase s)
. Buta l th o ugh “ r ej ec ting a guidel i ne as l acking a basi s in data, exper i ence, o r expert i se” i s pro per i n l i ght o fa dist ri ct c ourt ’s d i scr eti on t o rej ect gui del i nes as inconsi ste nt with i ts penal theo ri es, i d. , a di str i ct c ourti s no t r equi re d to “del ve i nto th e h ist or y of a gu id elin e s o th at[it] ca nsa tis fy [it ]se lf th a t the pr o c e s s tha t pr o du c e d i t wa s a de qu a te to produce a goo d gui del i ne, ” id. at 368. Th e d istri ct cou rt he r e di d e no ugh t o e xpl ain why i t was f ol l o wi ngthe Gu i del i ne; th e deci si on t o f ol l ow the S entencing Guidel i nes i s withi n the court’s d i scr eti on j ust a s the deci si on to rejec t th em is. C o rner, 20 10 W L 93575 4, at* 3. M or eno- Padil l a has not d em onst ra ted thatthe dist ri ct cour t m i sst epped atany poi nt in i ts disc ussi on o fthe 16- level en ha nc em en t. W e the refore affi rm M oreno -Pad ill a’s se n te n c e o nth is gr ou n d as w ell.N o. 08

-4302 25 I I I . C o nc l us i o n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM M oreno -Pad il la’s sente nce.

4- 8- 10