Opinion ID: 2994964
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Deportable Alien Status

Text: Finally, the district court declined to grant a downward departure based on Martinez-Carillo’s status as a deportable alien, which would subject him to harsher conditions of confinement. The district court’s refusal was predicated on our opinion in United States v. Gonzalez- Portillo, 121 F.3d 1122 (7th Cir. 1997), which precludes such a departure based on deportable alien status for defendants convicted of illegal entry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. sec. 1326 and sentenced under U.S.S.G. sec. 2L1.2. Martinez-Carillo contends that Gonzalez- Portillo was wrongly decided because it is inconsistent United States v. Farouil, 124 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 1997), and because it is out of step with Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) since the courts cannot categorically proscribe a factor as a basis for departure unless the Sentencing Commission has expressly forbidden consideration of said factor. Martinez-Carillo believes that Gonzalez- Portillo creates such an impermissible categorical ban on the use of deportable alien status as a factor for departure, and thus must be overruled. We disagree. A district court shall impose a sentence within the range spelled out in the Sentencing Guidelines unless the court finds that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines . . . . 18 U.S.C. sec. 3553(b); see Koon, 518 U.S. at 92. We understand that ’for the courts to conclude that a [non- prohibited] factor must not be considered under any circumstances would be to transgress the policymaking authority vested in the Commission.’ McMutuary, 217 F.3d at 484 (quoting Koon, 518 U.S. at 106-07). Deportable alien status is not among the factors that has been prohibited by the Sentencing Commission as a basis for departure. So, we have found that the status of being a deportable alien can affect the conditions of imprisonment . . . , United States v. Guzman, 236 F.3d 830, 834 (7th Cir. 2001), and thus have held that a departure based on conditions of confinement for a deportable alien is generally permissible, see id.; Farouil, 124 F.3d at 846-47. However, we have also held that such status is not a proper basis for departure when the crime of conviction is one listed under 8 U.S.C. sec. 1326 and sentenced under U.S.S.G. sec. 2L1.2. See Gonzalez-Portillo, 121 F.3d at 1125; see also Farouil, 124 F.3d at 846. We have so held because all crimes covered by [U.S.S.G. sec.] 2L1.2 involve illegal presence in the United States by aliens, deportability was certainly accounted for in the guideline. Gonzalez-Portillo, 121 F.3d at 1125; see Farouil, 124 F.3d at 847. However, in Farouil we found deportable alien status a permissible departure basis since the defendant was convicted for importing heroin into the United States. We explained that there was no reason to believe that the Guidelines [had] accounted for a defendant’s status as a deportable alien in setting the level for that offense. Farouil, 124 F.3d at 847. We contrasted this with our holding in Gonzalez- Portillo, noting that when the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced encompasses being present in the United States after having been deported, we ruled that the Guidelines already took into consideration the defendant’s status as a deportable alien. Id. Thus, Gonzalez-Portillo and Farouil are not inconsistent. Farouil expressly harmonizes its reasoning with that in Gonzalez-Portillo. See 124 F.3d at 846-47. Gonzalez-Portillo does not violate the mandate in Koon because it does not create a categorical ban on the use of deportable alien status for departure; rather, it recognizes that the Sentencing Commission has already fully accounted for deportable alien status in fixing the penalty for offenses under 18 U.S.C. sec. 1326. Other circuits have since adopted the reasoning and holding in Gonzalez- Portillo. See, e.g., United States v. Garay, 235 F.3d 230, 234 (5th Cir. 2000) (joining Gonzalez-Portillo’s holding that alienage [is] an impermissible basis for departure when, as here, status as a deportable alien has necessarily been taken into account by the Sentencing Commission in establishing the offense level for the crime [which was a violation of 8 U.S.C. sec. 1326]); United States v. Martinez-Ramos, 184 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 1999) (joining Gonzalez-Portillo’s holding that departure on account of deportable status for aliens convicted of [8 U.S.C.] sec. 1326 offenses fits squarely within Koon’s perimeters and is proscribed). The district court’s decision not to depart downward on this basis was correct.