Opinion ID: 2709119
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: District Court’s Sentencing Authority

Text: Sandoval-Velazco also alleges that the district court erred in failing to recognize the authority to impose a below-guidelines sentence. Whether a district court followed proper sentencing procedures, including whether it exercised proper discretion in considering the guidelines, is a legal question reviewed de novo. United States v. Pulley, 601 F.3d 660, 664 (7th Cir. 2010). When a district court does not consider an argument because it is unaware of its authority to do so, a remand is warranted. United States v. Taylor, 520 F.3d 746, 748 (7th Cir. 2008). The government argued that a sentence within the guidelines adequately reflected the nature, duration, and extent of Sandoval-Velazco’s criminal activity. Sandoval-Velazco countered by indicating that he would be deported following No. 12-3878 9 his sentence, which constituted additional punishment given the fact that he would be leaving behind a fiancee and child. He also indicated that he had no prior arrests or criminal record and again emphasized that he was merely a courier in the conspiracy. The district court found that being a courier was not an automatic entitlement to a below-guidelines sentence: “I recognize also that while the law does not recognize this, there are many people who believe that if you just carry this stuff from one place to another it’s not the same thing as being a drug dealer.” The court further stated that “the truth of the matter is, Congress could have declared that to be the case, they just didn’t.” The court then addressed Sandoval-Velazco’s role in the offense, explaining that while he was not being given an aggravating role enhancement, he was nonetheless responsible for repeatedly transporting large amounts of narcotics over an extended period of time. Sandoval-Velazco claims that the district court committed procedural error in failing to recognize its own authority to implement a below-guidelines sentence. He derives this notion from the district court’s statement regarding the lack of Congressional action for sentencing couriers at a lower level than other members of a drug-trafficking conspiracy. Sandoval-Velazco alleges that the district court appeared to be sympathetic to his arguments at sentencing, but absent some mandate by Congress the district judge believed that he could not consider them. Certainly, a district court is within its authority to impose a sentence outside of that recommended by the guidelines. 10 No. 12-3878 United States v. Corner, 598 F.3d 411, 416 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[A] judge who understands what the Commission recommends, and takes account of the multiple criteria in § 3553(a), may disagree with the Commission’s recommendation categorically, as well as in a particular case.”). Here, there is nothing to suggest that the district court was unaware of its authority to sentence Sandoval-Velazco below the minimum sentence recommended by the guidelines. The district court’s statement on Congressional policy simply demonstrates that it considered Congress’ judgment in treating narcotics couriers similarly to narcotics distributors—had Congress meant for couriers to be sentenced less severely as a matter of course, it would have said as much. Moreover, the district court’s statement that it was “going to give him a guideline sentence” signifies that it fully understood that it was within its rights to do otherwise. Thus, we find no error in the district court’s sentencing of Sandoval-Velazco.