Opinion ID: 202690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonableness of Tejeda's Sentence

Text: 76 Tejeda argues that his sentence is unreasonable as a matter of law. See United States v. Jiménez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514, 519 (1st Cir.2006) (en banc). He argues that the nature and circumstances of his offense, his personal history and characteristics, his potential for rehabilitation, sentences imposed by other federal courts, and the sentences imposed on his co-defendants all weigh in favor of his receiving the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months. Tejeda's counsel made all of these arguments to the district court at his sentencing hearing. 77 The district court explained its reasons for imposing a twenty-year sentence. It discussed the fact that Tejeda was the supplier in a massive [crack] distribution ring and stated that crack cocaine is one of the most addictive, dangerous substances known to our society. The court stated that its sentence took rehabilitation into account, although the court did not think rehabilitation particularly likely, 12 and it referred to Tejeda's family circumstances, concluding that while they were tragic, they had been caused by Tejeda. The court further stated that comparison to the average sentence imposed by other courts for the offense in question was not necessarily instructive since that average did not account for factors such as drug quantity. Finally, we note that [a]lthough a district court may consider disparities among co-defendants in determining a sentence, [a defendant's] sentence [is not] unreasonable simply because his co-defendants agreed to help the government in exchange for reduced sentences. United States v. Vázquez-Rivera, 470 F.3d 443, 449 (1st Cir.2006). Tejeda's sentence is not unreasonable. 78 Tejeda's conviction and sentence are affirmed.