Opinion ID: 2999534
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: reasonableness of mendoza’s sentence

Text: Mendoza next challenges the reasonableness of his sentence, under Booker, arguing that he should have received a non-guidelines sentence due the unwarranted sentence disparity between himself and his codefendant, Quinonez. See United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Essentially Mendoza argues that because he and Quinonez were similarly situated in the drug conspiracy, his sentence should have been no greater than that of Quinonez. We disagree. Mendoza’s sentence was within a properly calculated guideline range, and is thus entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). “[Mendoza] can rebut this presumption only by demonstrating that his . . . sentence is unreasonable when measured against the factors set forth in § 3553(a).” Id. He has failed to do so. While 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) mandates that courts are to avoid unwarranted sentence disparity among similarly situated defendants. Disparity in sentences among defendants for the violation of the same statute is only warranted when the facts of a surrounding a crime6 demonstrate to the 6 Including their prior criminal records and/or their respective degrees of cooperation with the government. No. 05-3323 9 sentencing judge that one defendant should receive a greater or lesser sentence based on the circumstances of that particular case. See United States v. Boscarino, 437 F.3d 634, 638 (7th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Apr. 27, 2006) (No. 05-1379); United States v. Newsom, 428 F.3d 685, 689 (7th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 1455 (2006). Despite Mendoza’s assertion to the contrary, the judge found and clearly explained that Mendoza and Quinonez were not similarly situated. We agree. As stated at length above, the district judge found that Mendoza had a closer relationship with Alfaro, the purchaser and thus a principal member of the conspiracy, than did Quinonez. In making that determination, the judge specifically mentioned Mendoza’s prior personal contacts and dealings with Alfaro and that Mendoza was entrusted with making the final delivery of the drugs to Alfaro. On the other hand, there was no evidence that Quinonez ever had any contact or prior dealings with Alfaro or the conspiracy’s other principal member, Rox. Moreover, the record also reflects that Mendoza’s degree of cooperation with the government was less than that of Quinonez, who the government advocated was entitled to a reduction based on his substantial assistance. The disparity between Mendoza’s and Quinonez’s sentences, based on the record before us, is both warranted and reasonable. AFFIRMED. 10 No. 05-3323 A true Copy: Teste: ________________________________ Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit USCA-02-C-0072—8-10-06