Opinion ID: 2797523
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant’s Sentencing

Text: On January 9, 2014, Estrada-Mederos pled guilty to the illegal reentry charge pursuant to a plea agreement. The presentence report found that the sentencing guideline range was 57 to 71 months of imprisonment, and the parties agree with that calculation. Estrada-Mederos argued that a below-guideline sentence would be appropriate because the government’s delay in charging him with illegal reentry had the effect of extending his federal criminal sentence. He argued that federal authorities knew he was in the United States as early as November 2011 and certainly no later than October 18, 2012. Yet he was not indicted for illegal reentry until October 17, 2013. Both portions of the delay could be important for sentencing. If defendant had been sentenced before his state custody had expired, at least a portion of the federal illegal reentry sentence could have been concurrent to his state sentence. See U.S.S.G. No. 14-2417 5 § 5G1.3(c). The federal delay in charging made a concurrent sentence impossible. Defendant also argued that his sentence should be below the guideline range because he would not receive credit for the time served in immigration custody. Estrada-Mederos presented this delay argument sufficiently to the district court, and the government does not argue that he forfeited any of his arguments or otherwise failed to present them adequately. Three pages of his sentencing memorandum focused on the delay in charging him. Most of the discussion emphasized the lost opportunity to receive a partially concurrent sentence, but he also made the point that “the fact that he will receive no credit for the time spent in state custody or ICE custody prior to the indictment in this case . . . should be considered by this Court in arriving at a just sentence.” Sentencing Mem. 16. At the sentencing hearing, his counsel presented the delay-in-charging issue by explaining that ICE was aware of his presence in the United States by November of 2011, when an ICE agent came to visit him in jail. His counsel argued that “he has been in custody since November of 2011 consistently. … So we ask the Court to consider giving him time served from the time he had been in custody in 2011, which is roughly two years.” Tr. 8–9. Those two years included the six months in immigration detention, as was also clear from the presentence report. The government objected to a sentence below the guideline range based on the delay in charging because the factual bases for the state and federal crimes were unrelated. The government also contended that it was 6 No. 14-2417 aware of defendant’s presence in the United States no earlier than October 2012. After hearing from Estrada-Mederos himself, the district court announced the sentence: There are a number of factors that push the de- termination in favor of the defendant for a lower sentence and also away from the de- fendant for a higher sentence. The fact that this is a recidivist crime, the fact that Mr. Estrada- Mederos has engaged in other criminal activity, of course, is not in his favor. But the guidelines, considering the various factors, including the 16-point enhancement, do provide for guid- ance that the Court believes is appropriate. And so pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it is the judgment of the Court that De- fendant Marcos Estrada-Mederos is hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of 57 months on Count 1. Tr. 15–16. After the sentence was announced, EstradaMederos asked the court if he would get any credit for time served. The judge responded: The Bureau of Prisons actually makes that de- termination. It’s not my determination to make. And although that was something that I con- sidered in going to the low end of the guideline range—because, frankly, there were factors that would indicate a higher sentence should be imposed. The fact that you have been in custo- No. 14-2417 7 dy on other charges is something I did take in- to account. But the Bureau of Prisons will actu- ally make the determination as to what amount of time should be credited towards this sen- tence, and that will be the Bureau of Prisons’ determination. It’s not mine. It’s not a judicial officer’s determination. Tr. 18.