Opinion ID: 170815
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Vindel-Montoya’s Sentence

Text: On December 18, 2006, Mr. Vindel-Montoya pleaded guilty to the -3- reentry charge. The presentence investigation report (PSR) reflected a base offense level of 8, and a 16-level increase based upon a prior conviction for a drug trafficking offense that resulted in a prison sentence greater than thirteen months. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). From this adjusted offense level of 24, Mr Vindel-Montoya received a three-level decrease based upon his acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of 21. With a criminal history category of II, the recommended United States Sentencing Guideline range was 41 to 51 months’ imprisonment. Apart from typographic errors, Mr. Vindel-Montoya did not object to the calculations in the PSR. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Espinoza explained that, in 2001, Mr. Vindel-Montoya returned to the United States to assist his mother (now deceased), who was in poor health and needed money for medication to treat her diabetes. Several witnesses testified that Mr. Vindel-Montoya worked hard at running a lunch wagon and was a coach and a player with a Hispanic soccer league team. His family and friends testified that he had learned from his previous drug-trafficking conviction, and that, as “a very gentle and calm man,” he was devoted to his family, and “he has lived his life in a . . . thoughtful and decent and calm” manner. Rec. vol. IV, at 8. Mr. Vindel-Montoya stated that he returned to assist his mother, and also to financially assist his common-law wife and his very young son. He -4- stated that he did not realize the consequences of his return, and he apologized. Defense counsel asked for a 24-month sentence. The district court acknowledged its obligation to consider the statutory sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and asserted it had done so. The court made several formal findings and conclusions regarding the statutory factors and what an appropriate sentence for Mr. Vindel-Montoya would be. Specifically, the court noted: The sentence needs to reflect the seriousness of the offense and promote respect for the law and constitute a just and reasonable punishment. As we all know, the issue of illegal entry into this country has become a serious problem, as is the drug trafficking. And the defendant presents as [sic] an individual with individual accomplishment and support from his family and community, which is encouraging to me, but also represents two serious issues that this country has to deal with. Id. at 15. And it is my job to come up with an appropriate punishment; what will prevent the defendant from committing the same crime and protect the public from those crimes. I’m told that he has learned his lesson and didn’t realize that there was such a significant punishment. Id. at 15-16. I, of course, can understand how that might not be understood by an individual in his circumstances. But these are serious offenses, and I do conclude that to depart from the guideline recommendations would be an unwarranted disparity. Unfortunately, there are many others in defendant’s position that come before me on a daily basis almost, and regrettably, there almost always seems to be a family and reasons why punishment -5- will be difficult. But I see no reason to depart from the guideline range and will sentence the defendant in accordance with his plea agreement and the recommendation. Id. at 16. The district court then sentenced Mr. Vindel-Montoya to 41 months’ imprisonment, followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Mr. Vindel-Montoya, proceeding pro se, filed a timely appeal.