Opinion ID: 3059058
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consecutive Life Sentences

Text: The district court sentenced defendants Ortiz and Rolon to life imprisonment on each of Counts 1, 2, 5, and Counts 8 and 9, respectively, all to run concurrently;4 240 months’ imprisonment on Counts 3 and 4, to run concurrently; and consecutive terms of life imprisonment on Count 6.5 Prior to their crimes in this case, both Ortiz and Rolon had extensive criminal convictions, including multiple violent felonies. Although they raise only a few sentencing issues, we explain at length how their sentences were calculated since both defendants are serving consecutive life sentences.
Rolon’s Presentence Investigation Report (“Rolon’s PSI”) showed that he had these Florida convictions: (1) four separate convictions in 1990 for aggravated battery (CR89-212), robbery with a deadly weapon (CR89-1901), grand theft in the third-degree of a motor vehicle, possession of burglary tools (89CF12435-O), 4 The district court grouped together Counts 1, 2, 5, and 8 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c). These counts were also grouped with Counts 3 and 4. Id. In sentencing Ortiz and Rolon to life imprisonment on Count 5 the district court exceeded the statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 924(o). On remand, the district court must correct Ortiz’s and Rolon’s sentences on Count 5. 5 Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4 and § 3D1.1(b), Count 6 was excluded from the grouping rules because the statute governing that offense requires that the term of imprisonment run consecutively to any other term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). 8 and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (89CF12688-O); (2) 1997 convictions for attempted second-degree murder, possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (CR974069); (3) 2000 convictions for attempted first-degree murder, attempted armed kidnapping, shooting into an occupied vehicle, and use of a firearm during a felony (97-10535); and (4) a 2000 conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon (98-26377). These convictions yielded 12 criminal history points, corresponding to a criminal history category of V. In addition, because Rolon’s 1990, 1997, and 2000 convictions included at least two “crime[s] of violence,” Rolon was a career offender under the guidelines, which raised his criminal history category to VI. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). Rolon’s base offense level was 34. Because Rolon’s offense statutory maximum was life imprisonment on Counts 1 and 2, Rolon’s career offender status raised his offense level from 36 to 37, yielding a guidelines range of 360 months’ to life imprisonment. Id. § 4B1.1(b)(A).6 Rolon’s conviction on Count 6, for violating § 924(c)(1)(A), carried a consecutive sentence of not less than five 6 The PSI noted that Rolon also met the guidelines definition of an armed career criminal because he was subject to an enhanced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a). Consistent with the armed career criminal guidelines, Rolon was sentenced according to his career offender offense level of 37. See id. § 4B1.4(b)(2). Unlike Ortiz, Rolon did not receive a two-level increase for obstruction of justice. 9 years’ imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (c)(1)(D)(ii). This Count 6 conviction also raised Rolon’s guidelines calculation to 420 months’ to life imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(c)(2)(A). Rolon’s Count 6 conviction not only triggered a consecutive sentence under § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), but also mandatory life imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c). Rolon’s Count 6 conviction was for using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and a drug trafficking crime and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), a person convicted of a “serious violent felony” who has two prior “serious violent felony” convictions is subject to a mandatory life sentence.7 Section 3559(c) defines “serious violent felony” as “a Federal or State offense, by whatever designation . . . consisting of murder . . . assault with intent to commit murder . . . kidnapping . . . robbery . . . firearms use; firearms possession (as described in 7 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(1) mandates a life sentence for a person convicted of a “serious violent felony” if: (A) the person has been convicted . . . on separate prior occasions . . . of --
(ii) one or more serious violent felonies and one or more serious drug offenses; and (B) each serious violent felony or serious drug offense . . . other than the first, was committed after the defendant’s conviction of the preceding serious violent felony or serious drug offense. 10 section 924(c)); or attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the above offenses,” 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(2)(F)(i) (emphasis added), or “any other offense punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force . . . or that . . . involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person of another . . . may be used . . . .” Id. § 3559(c)(2)(F)(ii). Rolon’s conviction on Count 6, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), qualified as a “serious violent felony” under the explicit terms of § 3559(c)(2)(F)(i). Because Rolon’s 1990, 1997, and 2000 convictions included “serious violent felon[ies]” under § 3559(c), Rolon was subject to a mandatory life sentence on Count 6.8 In addition, because the sentence for an offense under § 924(c)(1)(A) must be consecutive to any other sentence, the district court sentenced Rolon to a consecutive term of life imprisonment on Count 6. Id. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii).
Ortiz received an identical sentence. Ortiz’s Presentence Investigation 8 On January 22, 2010, the government filed a Notice of Intent to Seek Enhanced Penalties Under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) listing Rolon’s following convictions as “serious violent felonies”: (1) 1990 convictions for aggravated battery (CR89-212) and robbery with a deadly weapon (CR89-1901), (2) 1997 convictions for attempted second-degree murder and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony (CR97-4069), and (3) 2000 convictions for attempted first-degree murder, attempted armed kidnapping, shooting into a vehicle, use of a firearm during a felony (97-10535), and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon (98-26377). As outlined earlier, Rolon’s PSI listed and described these same eight convictions as well as five others. 11 Report (“Ortiz’s PSI”) showed that he had over 20 prior Florida convictions: (1) a 1982 conviction for obstruction of a police officer (M82001942); (2) 1984 convictions for carrying a concealed firearm and obstruction by false information (F8414896B), grand theft auto (F84-19003), theft, no valid driver’s license, and reckless driving (F84-11104); (3) a 1985 conviction for aggravated assault (F8430194); a 1986 conviction for grand theft in the third degree (F86-026793B); 1987 convictions for burglary of a conveyance and grand theft auto (F97-14437); 1988 convictions for burglary of a dwelling, grand theft in the second degree, possession of burglary tools, criminal mischief (F87-27423B), and prostitution (B88-212277); a 1989 conviction for disorderly conduct (M89-62140); a 1990 conviction for battery (89-31358); a 1991 conviction for robbery (F90-6933); 1991 convictions for robbery, kidnapping, possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and carrying a concealed firearm (F90-13954B); 1991 convictions for third-degree murder and sale, purchase, or delivery of a controlled substance (F90-16384A);9 1997 convictions for possession of cocaine and resisting an officer with violence (F96- 9 On January 23, 1987, a man was shot from a vehicle in which Ortiz was a passenger (F90-16384A). On January 10, 1990, Ortiz and an accomplice robbed a jewelry store brandishing guns (F90-13954B). On February 19, 1990, Ortiz and an accomplice robbed a woman at gunpoint and stole her car (F90-6933). Although these violent offenses occurred on separate dates, Ortiz was convicted of all these offenses on April 8, 1991. 12 41769). These convictions yielded eight criminal history points, corresponding to a criminal history category of IV. In addition, because Ortiz’s 1991 conviction for robbery (F90-6933) and his 1997 conviction for resisting an officer with violence (F96-41769) were “crime[s] of violence,” Ortiz was a career offender under the guidelines, which raised his criminal history category to VI. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). Although Ortiz’s PSI showed that he had multiple violent felonies and controlled substance offenses, the PSI listed these 1991 and 1997 convictions as the basis of Ortiz’s career offender status.10 Ortiz’s base offense level was 34. The district court added a two-level increase for Ortiz’s leadership role, yielding an adjusted offense level of 36.11 In addition, because Ortiz’s offense statutory maximum was life imprisonment on Counts 1 and 2, Ortiz’s career offender status raised his offense level from 36 to 37. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a)–(b). After increasing Ortiz’s offense level from 36 10 A defendant is a “career offender” if (1) he was “at least eighteen years old at the time [he] committed the instant offense of conviction,” (2) “the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense,” and (3) “the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). 11 Ortiz’s § 846 offenses on Counts 1 and 2 involved at least 15 but less than 50 kilograms of cocaine, yielding an offense level of 34. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. The two-level increase for his leadership role increased his offense level to 36. Id. § 3B1.1(c). 13 to 37 for Ortiz’s career offender status, the district court added another two-level increase for obstruction of justice due to Ortiz’s perjurious trial testimony. This raised Ortiz’s offense level to 39, yielding a guidelines range of 360 months’ to life.12 Like Rolon’s conviction on Count 6, Ortiz’s conviction on Count 6 carried a minimum consecutive five-year sentence.13 This conviction raised Ortiz’s guidelines calculation to 420 months’ to life. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(c)(2)(A). Unlike Rolon, Ortiz’s conviction on Count 6 did not trigger a mandatory life sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c). Though Ortiz had committed two “serious violent felonies” over the course of several years, he was convicted of these predicate offenses on the same day.14 As a result, he was not convicted of his 12 The district court erroneously added a two-level increase to Ortiz’s base offense level for obstruction of justice after assessing an increase from 36 to 37 due to Ortiz’s career offender status. The district court should have added the two-level increase for obstruction of justice before considering the effect of Ortiz’s career offender status under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. See § 1B1.1(a) (instructing the court to consider “adjustments as appropriate related to victim, role, and obstruction of justice,” id. § 1B1.1(a)(3), before “[d]etermin[ing] from Part B of Chapter 4 any other applicable adjustments,” id. § 1B1.1(a)(6)). That calculation would have yielded a base offense level of 34, plus a two-level increase for Ortiz’s leadership role, plus a two-level increase for obstruction of justice, yielding a total of 38. Ortiz’s offense level 38 calculation plus criminal history category VI would have yielded a guidelines range of 360' months to life, which is equal to that using an offense level of 39 with the same category VI; thus, the district court’s error as to his offense level was harmless. 13 Ortiz’s PSI indicated that Ortiz also met the guidelines definition of an armed career criminal because he was subject to an enhanced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(a) (“A defendant who is subject to an enhanced sentence under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) is an armed career criminal.”). The district court did not rely on Ortiz’s having armed career criminal status, and the government does not argue it on appeal. 14 See supra n.9. 14 second qualifying felony “after [his] conviction of the preceding serious violent felony or serious drug offense,” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c)(1)(B). The district court noted that Ortiz had avoided his consecutive life sentence being mandatory under § 3559(c) “for technical reasons,” but—unlike Rolon—was the “organizer and leader of this conspiracy, procured the guns and the items to be used in the robbery, and then also testified patently falsely at this trial.”15 Thus, the district court sentenced Ortiz to a consecutive term of life imprisonment on Count 6. Defendants Ortiz and Rolon appeal their convictions and sentences on multiple grounds.16