Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/635-F-3d-271-7th-Cir-2011-07-3641-United-States-v-Vallar-597182366
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 17:55:58
Document Index: 447242796

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 3553']

635 F.3d 271 (7th Cir. 2011), 07-3641, United States v. Vallar - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 597182366
635 F.3d 271 (7th Cir. 2011), 07-3641, United States v. Vallar
Docket Nº: 07-3641, 08-1361, 08-3888, 09-3484.
Citation: 635 F.3d 271
Party Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert VALLAR, Tyrail Curry, Amador Hernandez, and Eladio Pedroza, Sr., Defendants-Appellants.
Attorney: Jennie Levin (argued), Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee in Nos. 07-3641, 08-3888, and 09-3484. Matthew M. Robinson (argued), Attorney, Robinson & Brandt, Covington, KY, for Defendant-Appellant in No. 07-3641. Amarjeet Singh Bhachu, Jennie Levin, ...
Case Date: February 14, 2011
Robert VALLAR, Tyrail Curry, Amador Hernandez, and Eladio Pedroza, Sr., Defendants-Appellants.
Argued Oct. 26, 2010.
Matthew M. Robinson (argued), Attorney, Robinson & Brandt, Covington, KY, for Defendant-Appellant in No. 07-3641.
Kent R. Carlson (argued), Attorney, Carlson & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant in No. 09-3484.
On September 20, 2005, a federal grand jury returned a fifty-one-count indictment against seventeen individuals, including Amador Hernandez (" Hernandez" ), Eladio Pedroza, Sr. (" Pedroza" ), Robert Vallar (" Vallar" ), and Tyrail Curry (" Curry" ). It charged the four with various offenses related to a drug conspiracy.
Pedroza challenges his sentence on four grounds. We review de novo
whether the district court committed a procedural error, which includes determining whether the district court properly considered the factors in 18 U.S. C. § 3553(a) and mitigating evidence, and whether it improperly treated the guidelines as mandatory or otherwise unduly relied on them. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Coopman, 602 F.3d 814, 817-19 (7th Cir.2010); United States v. Omole, 523 F.3d 691, 697-98 (7th Cir.2008). Next, we review for abuse of discretion whether the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the factors in § 3553(a). Coopman, 602 F.3d at 819.
First, while Pedroza concedes that the district court correctly calculated his guidelines range, he claims that the district court misapplied the factors in § 3553(a)1 and failed to adequately consider mitigating facts. This argument is vacuous.
The district court thoroughly analyzed the factors in § 3553(a) and committed no reversible error in doing so. It discussed the nature and circumstances of the offense— including the amount of drugs involved in the conspiracy, Pedroza's role in the conspiracy, and the harm from the drugs he distributed— Pedroza's history and characteristics— including his age and the fact that a guideline sentence would likely ensure that Pedroza would die in prison, that he has a strong family that he loves and supports, and his significant criminal history, including leading a drug distribution ring while imprisoned on a previous conviction— and the need for the sentence imposed to deter, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and protect the public from further crimes by Pedroza— including that Pedroza's previous sentences did not deter him from recidivating, his lack of remorse, and that he has no respect for the laws of the United States. The district court also considered that Pedroza would likely return and recidivate if he received a below-guidelines sentence and was deported after release, since he had been found in the U.S. illegally on three occasions.
The district court meaningfully considered the factors in § 3553(a). Pedroza claims that the district court did not adequately consider each of his mitigation arguments. The district court addressed the majority and strongest of Pedroza's arguments. That the district court did not explicitly discuss each of Pedroza's weaker arguments does not constitute reversible error under the facts of this case. See United States v. Paige, 611 F.3d 397, 398 (7th Cir.2010) (" [W]e regularly affirm sentences where the district judge does not explicitly mention each mitigation argument raised by the defendant. Indeed, sentencing judges must only demonstrate meaningful consideration of § 3553(a) factors." ).
Second, Pedroza claims that the district court did not adequately consider every factor in § 3553(a), specifically mentioning that the district inadequately discussed his
history and characteristics, whether the sentence provided just punishment for the offense and would promote respect for the law, and, more generally, whether the sentence was longer than necessary to promote the goals of sentencing. This argument is also meritless.
As the discussion above indicates, Pedroza's argument is belied by the record. The district court adequately discussed the factors in § 3553(a) he references. Thus, even if the district court did not consider each factor in § 3553(a), that would not constitute reversible error. See, e.g., United States v. Shannon, 518 F.3d 494, 496 (7th Cir.2008) (" The court need not address every § 3553(a) factor in checklist fashion, explicitly articulating its conclusions regarding each one. Instead the court may simply give an adequate statement of reasons, consistent with § 3553(a), for thinking the sentence it selects is appropriate." ).
Third, Pedroza argues that the district court unduly relied on the guideline range in selecting his sentence. But we see no indication in the record that the district court treated the guidelines as mandatory or presumed that a within-guidelines sentence was reasonable. See generally United States v. Carter, 530 F.3d 565, 577-78 (7th Cir.2008) (discussing whether the district court failed to properly recognize the advisory nature of the guidelines); United States v. Schmitt, 495 F.3d 860, 865 (7th Cir.2007) (holding that a district court gave too much weight to the guidelines where " his remarks indicated that he felt that there was an outside constraint on his discretion that he was not free to set aside" ); United States v. Ross, 501 F.3d 851, 853-54 (7th Cir.2007). Instead, the record demonstrates that the district court adequately explained its sentencing decision in light of the factors in § 3553(a) and Pedroza's characteristics.
We presume that Pedroza's sentence is reasonable because it falls within the properly calculated guidelines range. United States v. Panaigua-Verdugo, 537 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir.2008). Pedroza " can rebut this presumption only by demonstrating that his or her sentence is unreasonable when measured against the factors set forth in § 3553(a)." United States v. Nitch, 477 F.3d 933, 937 (7th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This is no easy task when the...