Opinion ID: 2974794
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Disparity Within District

Text: Lastly, Defendant contends his sentence is unreasonable because the district court refused to sentence him below the Guidelines range based on differences between his sentence and sentences of other illegal aliens within the Southern District of Ohio. In support of his request for a sentence below the advisory sentence calculated using the Guidelines, Defendant submitted certain statistical data. The district court carefully considered the statistics, but ultimately decided that “[t]he use of statistics to show a disparity within the discretion of this Court . . . does not satisfy this Court that either a departure from the advisory sentencing guideline range or a sentence below that range . . . should be ordered for this reason.” The district court’s consideration of the statistics was not unreasonable. Defendant’s sentencing data for “Immigration Offenses,” which includes the mean and median sentence, is composed of sentences for all immigration offenses, not solely 8 U.S.C. § 1326 offenses. The “Immigration Category” in Defendant’s statistical data is composed of a hodgepodge of sentences from all immigration statutes. 6 “Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the need to avoid sentencing disparity is only one of the factors that a district court should consider in determining an appropriate sentence.” HernandezFierros, 453 F.3d at 313 (holding no error when the district court balanced the need to avoid sentencing disparities with the need to protect the public and impress upon defendant the importance of obeying laws); see also Hernandez-Cervantes, 161 F. App’x at 508 (unpublished opinion) (holding no error when district court did not reduce defendant’s reentry of alien sentence because of sentencing disparity when court also considered the seriousness of the offense, deterrence to criminal conduct, and need to protect the public). The district court carefully considered all of Defendant’s arguments for a departure and weighed them in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court discussed the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, adequately afford deterrence to this particular defendant’s criminal conduct, take into consideration the public’s need for safety, and provide just punishment. This included Defendant’s history of violent offenses, problems with recidivism, and how those factors distinguished him from other similarly situated defendants who had received downward departures.3 The district court also considered the goal of providing Defendant with needed treatment or care in the most effective manner available to an illegal alien. Further, the district court considered sentencing disparity, stating, “as far as disparity, as far as treating this defendant unreasonably from other defendants who have committed similar crimes with similar 3 In addition to the aggravated assault conviction giving rise to the 16-level enhancement, Defendant has been convicted of driving with a suspended license, failure to identify (for providing police with a fictitious name), assault, and twice for driving under the influence. Defendant initially received probation for most of these convictions, but probation sentences were later revoked, in part, due to Defendant’s failure to attend alcohol treatment and his positive urine test for cocaine. 7 backgrounds, the Court believes it has covered that as thoroughly as it can. The Court sees no unreasonable disparity.” Defendant has not rebutted the presumption that the 40-month sentence was reasonable.