Opinion ID: 170909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Sentence Imposed by the District Court

Text: At the sentencing hearing, the court engaged in an extended colloquy with Munoz's counsel and the government attorney regarding whether Munoz's conduct was reckless. Judge Armijo then adopted the PSR's factual findings and also incorporated the testimony presented at the hearing. Based on the evidence before her, the sentencing judge found that the Suburban driven by Munoz was substantially overloaded and overcrowded, which made the defendant's vehicle less safe because there were not seats or seat bets [sic] for all of the vehicle's occupants. The situation was especially unsafe, the court found, for the two passengers whom Munoz instructed to lie down in the cargo area. The court also found it likely that the overloading of the vehicle adversely affected its handling and maneuverability. Finally, the court cited the duration of this defendant's journey as added support for her conclusion that Munoz acted recklessly enough to justify the § 2L1.1(b)(5) enhancement. As for the upward departure, the court looked to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.1 and the methodology articulated in Jose-Gonzalez. As noted above, U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2 directs the court to group the four counts to which Munoz pled guilty and to assign that group the offense level for the most serious of the counts comprising the Group, U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(a). Citing Jose-Gonzalez, the court noted that the rationale for this rule is that the victim contemplated by the offense is the same single victim  the societal interest in controlling immigration. Here, however, there were human victims. Thus, the court felt it necessary to forego the grouping rule and instead extrapolate from § 3D1.4. Under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4, [10] the court counted the four decedents enumerated in counts 4 through 7 of the Indictment (the courts to which Munoz pled guilty) as one unit each, and added two more units for the seriously injured passengers. These six total units correlated to a five-level upward departure, resulting in a guideline range of 78 to 97 months. [11] The court, after carefully reconciling the advisory guidelines sentence (and its planned upward departure) with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, imposed a sentence of 96 months for each of the four counts, to be served concurrently. The sentencing court's memorandum opinion and order, issued December 11, 2006, tracks the analysis announced by the court during the sentencing hearing.