Opinion ID: 4508991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentencing in 2009

Text: Rosales-Diaz’s presentence investigation report (“PSI”) assigned him a base offense level of 8, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a) (2008). The PSI increased the base offense by 16 levels, pursuant to § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), because Rosales-Diaz was previously deported following a conviction for a crime of violence, namely Florida burglary of an occupied dwelling. Rosales-Diaz received a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), (b), yielding a total offense level of 21. The PSI assigned Rosales-Diaz 26 criminal history points, placing him in criminal history category VI. A total offense level of 21 and a criminal history 3 Case: 16-17304 Date Filed: 02/20/2020 Page: 4 of 17 category VI yielded an advisory guidelines range of 77 to 96 months’ imprisonment. Rosales-Diaz objected to the 16-level increase, arguing that his burglary conviction was of an unoccupied dwelling and not a crime of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). At sentencing, the district court overruled RosalesDiaz’s objection because the state-court documents indicated that he was convicted of burglary of an occupied dwelling, which constituted a crime of violence under that guidelines provision. At the June 2009 sentencing hearing, the district court accepted the PSI’s guidelines calculations and advisory range of 77 to 96 months’ imprisonment. However, the district court sentenced Rosales-Diaz to 120 months’ (10 years) imprisonment, varying 24 months above the guidelines high end of 96 months (8 years). Explaining his upward variance, the district court said that “[s]ince becoming an adult at age 18, [Rosales-Diaz has] committed crimes which net him a criminal history category of 26 points, which is double the number that you need to qualify for the highest criminal history category, that of six.” The district court described Rosales-Diaz as a “career criminal” who returned after deportation to commit crimes, and it rejected his assertion that he came back to the United States to be with his children. The district court highlighted that Rosales-Diaz had no regard for the safety and welfare of the community and had no respect for the law. The district court also cited the need to afford adequate deterrence to 4 Case: 16-17304 Date Filed: 02/20/2020 Page: 5 of 17 repetitive criminal conduct and to protect the public from Rosales-Diaz’s future crimes. In addressing Rosales-Diaz personally, the district court said: “You are a one-man crime wave. You are a menace to the community. You’re a burglar, you’re a thief, you assault people. You resist law enforcement’s efforts to apprehend you. You cause accidents, you leave the scene of accidents.” The district court reiterated that Rosales-Diaz had a wide range of prior crimes, including “fleeing the scene of accidents, fleeing from law enforcement, assaulting people, . . . burglarizing a person’s vehicle, [and] burglarizing a person’s home.” The district court stated that, while we all make mistakes, Rosales-Diaz had made too many. After taking into account both the advisory guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court determined that an upward variance was “more than in order.” The district court noted that it had seriously considered giving Rosales-Diaz the statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment because of the likelihood that Rosales-Diaz would return to the United States after serving his sentence and being deported back to Mexico. However, the district court ultimately determined that a 10-year sentence was “more than reasonable in this case.”