## 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. 09

- 3333 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J OSE F I GU E R OA, al so known as J OSE F I GU E R OA -M AL DANA DO, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 08- CR-217

—Rudo lphT. Rand a, Judge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 20, 2010

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 13, 2010

Befo re F LA UM, W OO D , a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. T he re w as li ttle out of the ord inary i n J ose Fi guer oa’ s t ri aland convi cti on . Fi guer oa w as ch ar g ed wi thl ea di ng a mul ti m i l l i o n- do l l ardr ugc o nspi r ac y i n W isco ns i n fr o m 2 00 5 to 2 00 8. A j ur y c o nvi cted hi m o fo ne co unt of c on spi ra cy to posse ss co ca i ne with th e i nt en t to di st r ibut e i t an d o ne c o unt o fdi st r ibut i o n o fc o ca i ne . Al th oug h h e ch al l en g es o ne2 N o. 09

- 3333

ev id en tia ry d ec isio n in t h is a p p ea l , w e fin d n o m er it in that ar gum ent. Fi guer oa’s se ntenci ng was another m att er . The di str i ct cour t s entence d Fi guer oa to 235 m onth s’ i m pri sonm ent. T his rep resen ted the low end of Figueroa’s ad visory g ui del i ne s r an g e, a nd s o o n i ts f ac e th er e i s no th i ng re m a r k ab l e ab o uth i s s e nt e nc e e i the r . Bu tthe p r o c e ss th e d istri ct cou rt use d to get there

— i n parti cu lar , i ts ex tr an eou s an d i nfl amm at o r y c o m m en ts dur i ngthe se nt en cinghe ar i ng

— ca stdo ubto n the val i di tyo fthe sen ten ce. Du ring the h earing, the di st rict court d i g r e s s e d t o d i s c u s s F i g u e r o a ’ s n a t i v e Me x i c o , th e i mm i g r at i o n s ta tu s o fF i g ue r o a and hi s si st er s, a nd the c on dit i ons and l aw s in hal fa dozen o therco untri es

— not to m enti on unneces sar y r efer en ces to H ugo Ch ávez , I r an i ant er rori st s, a nd Adol fHi tl er ’ s do g . W e ha ve no w ay of kn ow ing how , if at all, th ese i rrelevant c o n s id erat ions affecte d Fi guer oa’ s s entence
. W e there f or e m ust r emand, t o e ns ur e th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s ch oice o fs en tence was base d onl y o n the cri ter i a that C ongres s has author i zed. S ee 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553.

I I n l ate 2 007, the go ver nm ent b ecam e a w ar e o f Fig u er oa ’s in vo lve m en t in a lar ge d ru g c on s p ira c y in and aro und the st at e o fW i sco nsi n. Fi guer oa, i t di scove red , w as the he ad ofan o rg ani zati on that di str ibuted m i l l i ons ofdol l ar s o fco cai ne o vera peri od ofye ar s. The go ver nm ent’ s k ey so urce ofi nfo rm ati on was R od ne y Sm ith. Sm ith d ealt dru gs for Fig u e r oa beforeN o. 09

- 3333 3 S m i th ’ s i nc ar ce r at i o n in 2 00 5. Af te rhi s r el ea se the ne xt yea r, S m i th ag re ed to co oper ate with the go ver nm ent; hi s co o per at i o n was to inc l ude pr o vi di ngthe g o ve r nm ent with i nfo rm ati on about Fi guer oa’ s d ru g b usi ness. Thi s ar r an gem entb o r e fr ui t when F i g ue r o a r ea ch ed o ut to Sm ith in 2008 to resu m e Sm ith’s rol e in Fi gu eroa’s o per at i o n. S m i thwas i n conta ct wi thF i g ue r o a an d hi s as so ci ates i n the s pr i ngo f2 00 8, a nd un derthe wat ch fule y es o fthe g o ve r nm en t, he r ec ei ve d c o ca i ne to dist ribute and m ade paym ents backto Fi guer oa’ s cr ew f orthe drugs he pre su m ab ly had sol d. Sm i th wore a re cor ding d evi ce during a num bero fthes e e ncounter s, and the devi ces pick ed up conver sati ons w i th Fi guer oa du ring wh i ch Fi guer oa m ade i nculpato ryst ate m ents about hi s r ol e in the drug co nspir acy. The contr ol l ed c om m unica ti ons, purchase s, and paym ents yi el ded eno ugh f orthe gov er nm ent t o go after F i g ue r o a ’ s drugo pe r a t i o n. Offi c e r s a r r e s t e d h i m o ut s i de his hom e o n J u ly 31, 2008, p urs ua nt to an arrest w arra nt i ssued ea rl i erthatweek. The o ffi cer s co m m anded Fig u er oa to ge t o n t h e g ro u n d , ad vis ed h im of h is M i r anda r i g ht s, a nd pl ac ed hi m i n ha nd cuff s. Dur i ng t h i s en c ou n te r, atlea st on e o f th e o ffice rs h ad h is g un dr awn. M i g ue lCo r r ea, on e ofthe o ffi ce r s o n the scene, then expla i ned to Fi guer oa that he w as ar re ste d and aske d fo r perm i ssi on to enter hi s ho m e. Fi guer oa agreed

. On ce insid e, one of th e officers asked Fi gu eroa’s wi fe i f th ey co ul d swe ep th e r es i den ce to d ete r m i ne i fanyo ne el se w as ther e. A s o ne o ffi cerm ove d thro ugh the ho m e, ano thero btained Fi guer oa’ s verbaland w ri tte n4 N o. 09

- 3333

conse nt to se ar ch the enti re r esi dence. Dur in g th i s t i m e, Fi guer oa w as sea ted uncuffed at the k i tchen t abl e. T h e s ea rc h of Fig u er oa ’s h om e t u rn ed u p $5 4,5 40 in c a s h. ( La t e r, F i g ue r o a fi l e d a p r e t r i a lmo t i o n t o s up press thi s e vi dence. ) S epara tel y, o ffi c er s r eco ver ed drugs l in ke d to F i guer oa at the ho m e o fo ne o fhi s a sso ci ate s. I n additi on, at t ri al, S m i th and Fi guer oa’ s co - defe nd ant, Lil l i am Tor re s, o ffer ed tes ti m ony that l i nked Fi guer oa to th e d ru g c on sp ira c y. Fi guer oa w as convi cted o fo ne co unt of c on spi ra cy to posse ss w i th the i ntent to d ist rib ute fi ve orm or e k i l og r ams o fc o ca i ne , 2 1 U. S

. C. § 8 41 ( a) ( 1) & ( b) ( 1) ( A) an d § 8 46 , an d on e c ou n t o f d ist rib u tio n of co c ain e, i d. § 841( a) ( 1) & (b) ( 1) ( C). The di str i ct c ourtse ntenced Fi guer oa to 235 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. Fi guer oa appeal s, ch al l en g i ngthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r efus alt o s uppr es s th e frui ts ofthe sea rch and his se ntence.

II W e be gi n w i th the se ar ch. Be for e t ri al, Fi guer oa ask ed th e d ist ric t c o u rtto su p p re ss th e e vid en c e fo u n d in h is hom e be cause, i n hi s view , the pol i ce c oer ced hi m to conse nt to thei r sea rch ofthe prem i ses o n c e th ey had enter ed. A m agi str ate j ud ge rej ec ted thi s a rgum ent, co nc l udi ngtha t F i g ue r o a vo l unt aril y c o ns en te d t o the searc h. Th e d istri ct cou rt ad op ted the m agis t rate j ud ge’s r ul i ng . On appe al, F i g ue r o a ha s ch an g ed hi s ar g um en t sl i g ht l y ; he no w conte nds tha t he ne ve rc o ns en te d t o the o ffi ce r s’ i ni ti ale nt r y i nt o hi s hom e. Thi s ne w ar g um en t f ar es no b et te rtha n the pr ev i o us i te r at i o n.N o. 09

- 3333 5 T y p i c a l l y, o n c h a l l e n g es to e v i d e n t i a r y d e c i s i o n s , we re vi ew f actualdeter m i nati ons f orcl earer ro r an d l ega l questi ons d en ovo . I fa partyfi l ed a m oti on t o supp re ss i n the di s t r i c tc o ur tb utr a i s e s n ew a r g ume nt s f o rs up pres si on o n appeal, however, we re vi ew f orpl ai n er ro r i fthe de fen d an t ca n show goo d cause forf ai l i ng to mak e tho s e a r g ume nt s i n the di s t r i c tc o ur t
. S e e U nited State s v. M urdock, 4 91 F
. 3d 69 4, 6 98 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( ci ting F ED . R. C R IM . P. 1 2 ( e ) a nd U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 41 5 F. 3d 728, 73 0- 31 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ) ; se e a l so U ni t e d Sta te s v. Acox, 5 95 F. 3d 72 9, 7 32 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( as k i ng, i n the ab se n c e o f a d ist ric t-c ou rtd e c i s i o n on goo d ca u se , “if a m otion for reli ef had been m ad e and de nied , [ w h e t h er] th e d ist ric t c ou rtw ou ld h av e a b u se d its d i s c re tio n in con clud ing tha t the de fense lacked good cau se”). Fi guer oa’ s a rgum ent f ai l s a t e ver y turn. Fi rs t, he ha s no t es tabl i sh ed g o o d c au se f o rf ai l i ngt o a r g ue i n the dist ri ct c ourtthathi s co nsent to the o ffi cer s’ init i al entr y was i nvol untary . Se c on d, eve n i fhe pas sed that th r es ho l d, F i g ue r o a i s unabl e to e st ab li shtha t th e dist ri ct court err ed

— l et al one pla i nl y e rr ed

— in pe rm i tting the go ver nm ent t o i ntro du ce e vidence obtained fro m hi s h om e. Consent i s a well

- est abl i shed excepti on to th e w ar ra n t re q u ire m en t, Schn ec k lo th v. Bu st am onte, 412 U
. S. 21 8, 21 9 ( 1973 ) , and w e hav e he ld that an ar re st ed , ha n d c u ffed s u sp ec t is ca p ab le of g ivin g v oluntaryc onsent to the sea rch ofhi s ho m e, U nited Sta te s v. B er nitt, 392 F.3d 873 , 876-77 (7th C ir. 2004). Fig u er oa co n c ed ed d u rin g c ro ss -ex a m i n at ion atth e e viden ti ary he ar i ngtha t he ha d c o ns en te d to b o ththe i ni ti alentry a nd the full erse ar ch i nsi de:6 N o. 09

- 3333 Q : A fte r yo u w er e a rre st ed [o u ts id e of yo u r h om e] d id th e o ffi ce r s as ky o u i fthe y c o ul d c o m e in to y o ur house? A : Yes. Q: W hi cho ffi ce ra sk ed y o u i f th ey co ul d e nt ery o ur house? A : Cor re a. Q: Corr ea. A nd wh at did yo u sayto Offi cerCor re a? A : That y es. Q: A nd then w h at happened aft eryo u

— so you gave hi m per m i ssi on, co rr ect? A : Yes. Q: And the n wha th a pp e ne d? A : H e a ske d perm i ssi on t o go i n and Ito l d him to k n o c k, th a tmyw i fe w o u l d o p e n th e d o o rf o rh i m. Q: I s tha twh a th a pp e ne d? A : Yes. I fa ny th i nghe r e is pl ain, i t i s F i g ue r o a’ s co nc es si o n. Offi cerCor re a a l so tes ti fi ed that Fi guer oa c on sented to the e ntry
. N othing i n the re cor d su gg est s g oo d cause for F i g u e r o a ’ s f a i l u r e t o r a i s e th i s p o i n te a r l i e r ; n o rd o we detectany pla in e rror . W e co ncl ud e that the ev i dence w as p ro p er ly a d m itt ed ; b e c au se Figu er oa d oe s n otch all en g e an y o th era spe cto fhi s co nv icti o n, we affi r m the gui l ty ver dict

.N o. 09

- 3333 7 III Fi guer oa al so challenges hi s s entence
. Defendants m ay bring ch a lle n ges to both the sen ten cing p roced ure and the r esul ti ng se nten ce’ s s ubstanti ve re aso nabl eness . U nited Sta tes v. C o o per, 591 F. 3d 582, 590-91 (7 t h Cir. 2010 )
. Fi guer oa ra i ses o nl y pr oce du ra lo bj ecti ons. I n case s s uch as G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 5 52 U. S

. 3 8 ( 20 07 ), a nd R ita v. U nited Sta tes , 5 51 U. S

. 3 38 ( 20 07 ) , the S upr eme Co ur t es tabli sh ed a fr amewor kf o rs en te nc i ng i n th e fe d e r a lc o u r t s . B r i e fl y, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tb e g i ns by cal cul ating the advi sory guidel i ne r an ge, and then i ta pp l i e s the s e nt e nc i ngf a c t o r s s e tout in1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 553( a) to ar ri ve at a r eas onabl e s entence
. Dis tr i ct cour ts m ust e xplain thei r sente nci ng deci si ons to p e r mi tme a n i n g fu la p p e l l a t e r e v i e w. I n thi s ca se, the sentenci ng tr anscr i pt r eve al s a n extended disc ussi on o fto pics th at ar e bo th o utsi de of th e r ec o r d a nd e xt r an eo us t o a ny pr o pers en te nc i ng co ns i der at i o n. I n o ur vi ew, th e di st r i ct co ur t’ s lengthy an d d isc on n ec te d lec tu re sa p s a n y c o n fid en c e w e c ou ld ha ve in t he po r ti o ns o fthe he ar i ngtha t he wed t o the § 3 553( a) f acto rs . W e d o n otth in k it is n ec es sa ry to reh as h ev e r y d et ail of Fi gu eroa’s sen ten cing h e a r ing; a few exam p les are enou g h t o i l l us t r a t e wha t we nt wr o ng . F i g ue r o a i s o f M exi can d es cent, and the dist ri ct c ourtm ade a num ber ofco m m ents about M exi co and i ts percepti on o f M exi co’ s co ntributi on to drugand i m m i gr ati on i ssues in the U nited Stat e s . “T he sout hw est is being overw hel m ed, ” the j ud ge re m ar ked, and he went on t o8 N o. 09

- 3333 l am ent the f acto rs thathe b el i eve s m oti vate i m m i gr ati on to the Uni te d S ta te s. The j udg e al so c o m m en te d o n the im m i gr ati on s tatus ofFi guer oa, hi s wife, and his thre e s i ste rs . A t v ar i ous points, he l ashed o ut ati l l ega l im m igrati on, o ccasi onal l y r efer ring to “y ou peopl e” or “thos e p eople. ” ( Fi guer oa und er sto od thes e co m m ents to r efe r to p er so n s o f M ex ica n orig in, alth ou gh it is possibl e that the di str i ct c ourtw as r efer ring to i l l ega l im m igr an ts or im m igr an ts m or e g en er ally .) The sente nci ng tr anscr i pt r eve al s a n odd fo cus o n nati on- sta tes and nati onalcharac teri sti cs. The di str i ct c ou rtlink ed t h e d r u g t ra d e t o M ex ico , th en to C olo m b ia and Venezuel a, and then t o I ra n i an te rr or i sts thr ough th e per so n o fVe nezu el anPr es i den t H ug o Chá ve z. The j ud ge com m en ted that res p e c t f or the ru le ofl aw differ enti ate s the U ni ted S tat es fro m M exi co, Venez u el a, I ra n, and Paki sta n. Turni ng to pu n ishm ent, he r em ar ked that Fi guer oa shoul d be h appy that he was headed to an A m er i can

— ra therthan a M exi can o r Turki sh

— pr i so n, and that F i guer oa’ s co nd uct co uld have r esul ted i n exec ut i o n ha d i to c c ur r e d in M a l a y s i a o rT ha i l a nd

. T he trans cript also reveal s t h e district cou rt j ud ge’s us e of c o l o r ful

— and i napp ro pri ate

— anal ogi es to dispense with ar gum ents th at he di d not a pp re ci ate
. Rej ecting F igueroa ’ s wife’ s co m m ent that the se ntence w as unfai r, he s ai d that “ [ i ] t r em i nd s m e o f

. . . the perso n w ho k i l l ed hi s paren ts
. . . as ki ng [ the j ud ge] to have sym pathy f orhi m bec ause he’ s a n or pha n .” The j ud ge appears to have been re fer ring to the “cl ass i c defin i ti on of ch utzpa , ” L E O R OS T EN , T H E J OYSOF Y I DDI S H 94 (1971), but thi s i s a te rm thatdoes not a p p ly to a w i fe’ s a sse rt i onN o. 09

- 3333 9 that her husband’s i ncarcer ati on wil lhar m the f am i l y. Later, the j ud ge disc ounted Fi guer oa’ s cl ai m thathe was a g oo d fa m i l y m an: “even Ad ol fH i tl erwas adm i re d by hi s f am i l y. A dol fH i tl erl ove d his dog. Y et h e k i l l ed six m illion Jew s.” W e under st an d tha t se nt en cingi s ani ndi vi dual, a nd at ti m es i dio syncr ati c, pro cess . A nd we r ec ogni ze that the di str i ct c ourtj ud ge m ay have been fru str ate d by F i g ue r o a’ s lack ofr emor se a nd hi s ar g um en ts abo ut the unf ai rnes s o fhi s pre dica m ent. But this does not excuse the c ourtfro m i ts du ty to ensur e a f ai r proce ss. A t s entencing, the dist ri ct c ourt“m ust a dequ ately ex pl ain the c ho se n s en te nc e to a l l o w f o rm ean ingful ap p ella te rev iew an d to p r o m o t e t h e p er c ep tio n of fair sente nci ng. ” G all , 5 52 U. S

. a t 50
. W e co nc l ude tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t fel ls ho r t o fthi s requ i r ement
. I t i s true that the di str i ct c ourt m ad e r efer ences to the § 35 53( a) f acto rs and to the ar gu m ents base d on them thatdefense counselr ai sed, but the l i tany ofi nfl am m ato ryr em ar ks unde r m i ne d a ny th i nge l se tha t th e co ur t sa i d dur i ng the h ea ring. A l though we ty pica l l y do not re quir e a n ex ha us ti ve e xpl an at i o n whe n th e cou r t ch o o se s a se ntence withi n the re com m ended guidelin e range , se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. D e an , 414 F.3d 725 , 729 -3 0 ( 7th Cir. 2005), th e f ac t th atF i g ue r o a r ec ei ve d a wi th i n- g ui del i ne s s en tence does notm ake up f orthes e infl am m ato ryst ate
m ents. W e hav e no way ofkno w i n g h ow , i fatal l, thes e ex tr an eo us c o ns i der at i o ns i nfl ue nc ed F i g ue r o a’ s se ntence
. I t i s no answer t o saythatthe j ud ge chose a gui del i n e s s e n t e n c e a n d th u s a l lwa s we l l ; f o ra l lwe kn o w, set ti ng hi s pri vate view s t o one si de the cour t m ay ha v e tho ught tha t a b e l o w- g ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e was a p-10 N o. 09

- 3333 p rop riate. W e are un p ersu ad ed by th e gov ernm en t’s argu m en t tha t the discu ssion of the M ex ican d r u g w ars w as suffi ci entl y ge rm ane t o the underl ying co nd uct t o su ppo r t th e se nt en ce . I fthe se w ere t he o nl ye xt r an eo us co m m en ts , the n we m i g htg i ve the d ist r i ctc o ur t th e benefi t o fthe doubt. They were n ot. W e co ncl ud e that the d i s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s p r o c e s s wa s s o f a ro uto fb o un ds that Fi guer oa i s enti tl ed to re sente nci ng. W e em phasi ze, how eve r, thatwe are ta ki ng no posi tion on the s ubsta nt i v e r e a s o nab l e ne s s o fthe 2 3 5

- mon th s e nt e nc e that F i g ue r o a r e c e i v e d. Forc o mpl e t e ne s s , we n o t e tha tF i g ue r o a h a s fr a m ed h i s c h a l l e n g e a s a n a l l e g a t i o n o fn a t i o n a l

- o r i g i n d i s c r i min at ion . See , e . g. , U nite d State s v. Kaba , 480 F. 3d 152, 15 6- 58 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 7) ; s ee a l so U. S

. S

. G. § 5 H 1. 10 ( f o rbi ddi ng consi derat i on o fnati onalo ri gi n i n s en tencing)
. A l though t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tm a y h a v e m a d e o n e o rt w o c o mm en ts tha t o ve r emphas i ze d na ti o na l o r i g i n, thi s se ntencing hea ring had prob lem s a cro ss the b oar d. W e nee d no t dec i de i fthe se r efer en ce s to na ti o na lo r i g i n, s ta ndi ng alo n e, w ou ld req u ire rev er sa l. Fig u e r o a ’ s b rie f in t h is c ou rtals o h as tra c es of a c h all en g e to the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s dr ug - qua nt i tyde te r m i na ti o n, se e U. S

. S

. G. § 2 D1. 1, i ns o f ara s i t r ai se s que sti ons abo ut th e c re d ibilit y of w itn es s R od n ey Sm ith . W e fin d th is ar gum en t to be i ns uffi ci en tly de ve l o ped to mer i t co nsid er at ion . See , e . g. , Tre nt aduev. Re dm on , 20 10 W L 32393 97, at *5 ( 7 t h C i r . A u g. 18 , 201 0). E ve n if it h ad be en p ro p er ly dev el o ped, we fi nd e no ug h in the r ec o r d t o s uppo r t th e drug- quanti ty fi nd i n g. I nd eed, duri ng o ra lar gum ent, cou ns el for Fi gu eroa c o n c e d ed that the d istri ct cou rtN o. 09

- 3333 11 adopted the fi nd i ngs in t h e pr ese ntence i nvest i gat i on re port, i ncl ud i ng i ts concl usi on about the quantity o f d ru gs co n n ec te d w ith Figu er oa ’s re lev an t c on d u c t. A lth o u g h th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o u l d h a v e s p e n t m o r e t i me di sc us sing th e d r ugqua nt i tya nd l es s ti m e o n the e xtr aneous t op i cs r evi ew ed abo ve, we see no re aso n to up seti ts deci si on t h at Fi guer oa w as re sponsibl e for m or e than 50 ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne.

IV Fig u er oa ch alle n ge d an ev id en tia ry d e c isio n an d h is sen ten ce. W e hav e no p roblem w ith the d istri ct cou rt’s concl usi on that F i guer oa conse nted to the s earch o f his hom e, an d w e t h e r e fore see no error in th e cou rt’s d e c i s i o n t o a d mi tth e e v i d e n c e f o u n d by the p o l i c e . As f orhi s s entence , we concl ud e that the ev i dence w as suffi ci ent t o est abl i sh the drug quanti ty an d the o ri gi nalgui del i nes c al cul ati on . W e do not disturb those con clusion s. B ut w e find th a t r esen ten cing is nece ssary to e va l ua te tho se f ac to r s t ha t Co ng r es s ha s to l d us s ho ul d info rm the l e ng th o fthe s e nt e nc e . S e e 1 8 U. S

. C. § 35 53 ( a)
. W e woul d no t l i g htl y i nt er fer e wi ththe s en te nc i ngpr o ce ss b ec au se o fe xt r an eo us c o m m en ts dur i ng a s entencing hearin g. H er e, however, the com m ents w er e utt er l y o ut o fbo und s, and w e ha ve n o w ay ofas se ss i ngho w the se i m pr o pero bs er va ti o ns a ffec te d the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s fi nalchoi ce o fa sente nce. Forthes e r eas ons, we A FFIRM F i g ue r oa’ s co nv i ct i o n, V ACATE h i s s e nt e nc e , a nd R EMA ND f orfurtherpro c e e di ng s co ns i s t e ntwi th thi s o pi ni o n. Onr e man d, Cir cui t Rul e 3 6 s hal lapply

.12 N o. 09

- 3333 E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e, co ncu rring. J ud ges so m eti m es ge tc a r r i e d a wa y a nd s a y thing s the y s ho ul d n o ts ay. Iag re e with m y c ol l eagues that the j ud ge i n thi s ca se sai d thi ngs that he s houl d not hav e s ai d. A nd wh at w as sai d, Iag re e, m ar re d the pro ceduralas pects of Fi guer oa’ s s entencing pro ceedi ng. H av i ngs ai d tha t, ho wev er, Ido not thi nktha t whatthe j udg e actual l y di d, a s o ppo se d t o whathe s ai d, de m o nstrated an in t e n t to l ay th e w ood to Fi gu eroa or otherwi s e t r e a th i m un f ai rl y . T he s e nt e nc e the j ud g e i mpo s e d, w hich w as at th e low est p oint of Figueroa’s ad visory gui del i ne r an ge, l oo ks to be r eas onabl e. I fthe j ud ge tr u ly w an te d t o s tic k it t o Fig u er oa , he co u ld h av e s aid nothi ng o ut o fthe or dinar y a nd i m posed a sente nce, st i l lwi th inthe g ui del i ne r an g e, tha t was 5 8 m o nths l o n g e rth a n th e o n e a c t u a l l y o r d e r e d

. Wi thth a tb ei ng t h e c a s e , w e m ight very w ellhav e a no ha rm - n o f o ul si tuati on. Yet Fi guer oa i s e nti tl ed, pro cedural l y, to a c lea n er h ea r in g t h an th e o n e h e g otso I j oin m y c olleague s in return ing this cas e t o a n ew j ud ge for a fre sh hear i ng.

9- 13- 10