Opinion ID: 171743
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Mr. Hernandez, a Mexican citizen, was one of five individuals arrested by United States Border Patrol agents near Animas, New Mexico. He admitted to the agents that he was being paid to smuggle marijuana into the United States. The agents recovered five backpacks containing a total of 96.4 net kilograms of marijuana. Mr. Hernandez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 kilograms and more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), 846. A Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) was prepared. Mr. Hernandez’s total offense level was 17, which included a four-level reduction for being a minimal participant in the conspiracy, as well as a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.”) §§ 3B1.2(a), 3E1.1. Based on two misdemeanor convictions and one felony conviction for illegal reentry, his criminal history was category III. However, the PSR suggested that Mr. Hernandez’s criminal history category over-represented the seriousness of his criminal history and recommended that the court depart downward to category II, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1). Mr. Hernandez requested, in addition to the departure, that the court vary downward. Even with the departure, the recommended Guidelines range was 27 to 33 months. Mr. Hernandez’s four codefendants accepted fast-track plea agreements and 2 each of them received a sentence of eight months’ imprisonment.1 Because of his previous convictions, the government did not offer Mr. Hernandez a fast-track plea. Mr. Hernandez, however, argued that a within-Guidelines sentence would create an unwarranted disparity between himself and his codefendants. He suggested that fourteen months’ imprisonment was “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to impose appropriate punishment and achieve the legitimate aims of federal sentencing.” Aplt. Br. at 5.2 The district court granted the departure, assigning Mr. Hernandez to criminal 1 Mr. Hernandez states that his codefendants were sentenced to 12 months and one day imprisonment. See Aplt. Br. at 4. His statement, however, is contradicted by the record, which indicates that each of them received an eight-month sentence. See R., Vol. I, at 2-4 (district court docket sheet noting sentences of Mr. Hernandez and his co-defendants and specifying that each of the codefendants received eight months). Indeed, it is inconsistent with Mr. Hernandez’s own prediction in the district court of “the likely sentences” of his codefendants. Id., Doc. 45, at 4 (Sentencing Memorandum, dated May 24, 2008) (“Mr. Hernandez’ co-defendants likely face a sentence of eight months in custody, the low end of the guideline sentencing range which will probably apply to them.”); see also R., Vol. III, Doc. 77, at 2 (Transcript of Sentencing Hearing, dated June 25, 2008) (“This is a backpacker case where the other defendants are probably going to get an 8-month sentence.”). Mr. Hernandez’s inexplicable error in describing his codefendants’ sentences—and his similarly baffling error in stating the length of his requested variance, which is discussed in note 2 infra—do not impact our analysis and we disregard them. 2 In his opening brief, Mr. Hernandez claims to have requested an 18-month sentence. Aplt. Br. at 5. The record does not support this statement. Mr. Hernandez requested a 14-month sentence. He expected his codefendants to receive eight-month sentences. See supra note 1. He argued that “[a] sentence of 14 months would be six months greater than the likely sentences of [his] co-defendants” and asserted that the 14-month sentence “would be sufficient to meet the goals of sentencing in this case.” R., Vol. I, Doc. 45, at 4; see also id., Vol. III, Doc. 77, at 3 (“Basically, as I said in the memorandum, Your Honor, I’m asking for a 14-month sentence. . . . I think that’s sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the aims of sentencing.”). Indeed, Mr. Hernandez’s own reply brief says that he requested a 14-month sentence. See Reply Brief at 8-9 (“The only difference among them [the defendants in the case] was Mr. Hernandez’s criminal history, which would have been taken into account by imposition of the 14-month sentence he requested.”). 3 history category II. It then sentenced him to 27 months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the Guidelines range. Initially, the court did not address Mr. Hernandez’s request for a variance. When Mr. Hernandez specifically asked for the court’s findings with respect to the variance, the court responded, “Well, my findings are obvious. I’m not going to give him a downward variance. I think he’s already got enough. And with his criminal history category, I think he’s getting exactly what he deserves.” R., Vol. III, Doc. 77, at 7. This appeal followed.