Opinion ID: 2974049
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rayfield’s Sentence

Text: Rayfield argues that his sentence was excessive and that the district court failed to consider the mandate of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) by avoiding a sentencing disparity between him and his coDefendants. Specifically, Rayfield argues that other co-defendants received minimal sentences of thirty-three months (Marrero, Fernandez, and Izquierdo) and fourteen months (Alvaro Santoyo, another co-Defendant in this case). Rayfield’s argument lacks merit. Rayfield’s advisory Guideline range was 151 to 188 months. He was subject to a statutory minimum sentence of sixty months and a maximum of forty years. The other Defendants he compares himself to, Marrero, Fernandez, and Izquierdo, were sentenced after the Government filed § 5K1.1 downward departures based on their substantial assistance. As indicated above, Rayfield Page 17 of 22 has consistently disputed his involvement in the conspiracy and did not assist the Government. Based on the facts, he was not entitled to a similar departure. When the district court sentenced Rayfield, it adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors. In support of its sentence, the district court cited Rayfield’s lack of criminal history, the need to deter him from further crimes, the effect of dealing methamphetamine, and the need to be severe. The district court also required that Rayfield receive five hundred hours of drug treatment therapy. Since the district court’s sentence was reasonable, we affirm Rayfield’s sentence.