Opinion ID: 806567
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sentencing Court Adequately Considered

Text: Trujillo-Castillon’s Mitigating Evidence We review de novo whether a district court followed proper procedures in sentencing, including its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and any evidence in mitigation. United States v. Vallar, 635 F.3d 271, 27778 (7th Cir. 2011). If we find no significant procedural error, we will review the substantive reasonableness of the defendant’s sentence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Coopman, 602 F.3d 814, 819 (7th Cir. 2010). We presume that a correctly calculated, within- or belowguideline sentence is reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007) (within-guideline); United States v. Wallace, 531 F.3d 504, 507 (7th Cir. 2008) (below-guideline). But we do not presume that an above-guideline sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Reyes-Hernandez, 624 F.3d 405, 409 (7th Cir. 2010). Trujillo-Castillon claims the sentencing court did not consider his “lesser participation” argument. A court must address the defendant’s non-frivolous sentencing claims by providing a “reasonable justification” for the sentence imposed. Coopman, 602 F.3d at 818. The record here shows that the sentencing court satisfied its duty on this front. The court stated that “lesser participation does [mollify the severity of the offense] . . . [b]ut that can’t be divorced from your history here.” It noted No. 11-2646 7 that Trujillo-Castillon had never “complete[d] a successful supervision” and had one of the worst criminal records the court had ever seen. After reviewing the sentencing transcript, we are confident that the court considered Trujillo-Castillon’s evidence in mitigation but simply assigned it lesser weight than the defendant would have liked. See id. We find no error here.