Opinion ID: 1435121
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court's Calculation of Sanchez's Criminal History Category

Text: Sanchez first asserts that the district court incorrectly calculated his criminal-history category by counting his retail-theft, bail-jumping, and disorderly conduct convictions, when those convictions should have been excluded pursuant to § 4A1.2(c)(1). As pertinent here, under § 4A1.2(c)(1) convictions for misdemeanor and petty offenses are excluded when computing a defendant's criminal-history category if (1) the offense in question is similar to one of several enumerated minor crimes, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1); or (2) the convictions resulted in a sentence of one year or less of probation or analogous supervision, see id.; United States v. Jones, 448 F.3d 958, 960 (7th Cir.2006) ([C]ourt supervision is the functional equivalent of probation.); Binford, 108 F.3d at 727-28 (stating that under § 4A1.2(c)(1) supervision is the functional equivalent of conditional discharge, which we previously have held to be the functional equivalent of probation). Seizing on these provisions, Sanchez argues that his retail-theft conviction should have been excluded because it was similar to the enumerated crime [i]nsufficient funds check  an awkward label for the offense of passing a bad check. See United States v. Harris, 325 F.3d 865, 872 (7th Cir.2003). He also asserts that the district court should not have assessed one criminal-history point for his bail-jumping and disorderly conduct convictions because those convictions did not result in a term of supervision of more than one year. These arguments are frivolous. Sanchez's challenge to the inclusion of his retail-theft conviction warrants little discussion. We, along with several other circuit courts of appeals, have rejected repeatedly the contention that a retail-theft conviction should be excluded when calculating a defendant's criminal-history category on the basis that it is similar to passing a bad check, see Harris, 325 F.3d at 872-73; see also United States v. Lamm, 392 F.3d 130, 133-35 (5th Cir. 2004); United States v. Waller, 218 F.3d 856, 857-58 (8th Cir.2000); United States v. Hooks, 65 F.3d 850, 854-56 (10th Cir. 1995), and Sanchez has offered no compelling reason why we should revisit this position. Equally meritless is Sanchez's contention that the district court should not have considered his bail-jumping and disorderly conduct convictions. He argues that, contrary to the district court's findings, he was not subject to over a year of supervision for those convictions. Sanchez explains that when he pled guilty to those crimes he was placed on supervision pursuant to two separate deferred-prosecution agreements  one entered on March 19, 2001, and the other entered on January 14, 2002. As a result, Sanchez continues, he was not under a continuous period of supervision during this time; instead, his supervision under the March 19, 2001, agreement was terminated before he entered into the January 12, 2002, agreement. He further states that the second period of supervision pursuant to the January 12, 2002, agreement ended on June 26, 2002, and thus lasted only four-and-one-half months. Therefore, Sanchez asserts, the total amount of time on supervision pursuant to both agreements was less than one year. Aware that he shoulders the burden to proffer evidence supporting this explanation, see United States v. Salinas, 365 F.3d 582, 587 (7th Cir.2004); United States v. Willis, 300 F.3d 803, 807 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Rivera, 6 F.3d 431, 444 (7th Cir.1993), Sanchez appends to his brief three documents that, he claims, show that he was supervised for less than a year: (1) the March 19, 2001, deferred-prosecution agreement; (2) the January 14, 2002, deferred-prosecution agreement; and (3) a Dane County Circuit Court order dated June 26, 2002, dismissing the bail-jumping and disorderly conduct charges for his successful completion of the deferred-prosecution program. However, Sanchez's explanation regarding the length of his supervision omits information crucial to his argument, and the documents he provides contradict his claim that he was subject to two separate periods of supervision for a total of less than one year. Sanchez claims that the first deferred-prosecution agreement  the one entered on March 19, 2001  was terminated, and that he accordingly was removed from supervision when the agreement ended. Yet he does not say when that agreement ended, and instead states only that the record is devoid of information regarding when it ended. But this is not entirely true; the terms of that agreement provide that it would end on March 1, 2002. And if the agreement did end before that date, it is Sanchez's responsibility on appeal to explain when the agreement actually ended and to provide the court order removing him from supervision. See Salinas, 365 F.3d at 587; Rivera, 6 F.3d at 444 (`[A] defendant who challenges factual allegations contained in the PSR . . . has the burden of producing some evidence beyond a bare denial that calls the reliability or correctness of the alleged facts into question.' (quoting United States v. Isirov, 986 F.2d 183, 185 (7th Cir.1993) (alteration in original))). Indeed, Sanchez does not even tell us for how long in total he was under supervision. Looking, then, to the information and documents that Sanchez does provide, we conclude that he was supervised pursuant to the deferred-prosecution agreements for over one year. Under the March 19, 2001, agreement, Sanchez was supervised through March 1, 2002. And it was during that period of supervision that (for reasons unexplained) Sanchez entered into the second deferred-prosecution agreement on January 14, 2002, thus continuing his supervision under deferred prosecution until June 26, 2002. In short, the documents Sanchez provides to us show that, although he executed two separate deferred-prosecution agreements, he was under continuous supervision from March 19, 2001, through June 26, 2002  a span of 15 months. His challenge to the district court's assessment of one criminal-history point for his bail-jumping and disorderly conduct convictions therefore fails. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). B. The District Court's Two-Level Increase of Sanchez's Total Offense Level for Possessing a Stolen Firearm Sanchez next argues that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the shotgun recovered from his house was stolen, see United States v. Birk, 453 F.3d 893, 899 (7th Cir.2006), and that the district court accordingly erred by applying a two-level increase under § 2K2.1(b)(4). According to Sanchez, the only evidence the government submitted was the Verona Police Department incident report showing that a black 12-gauge Mossberg shotgun was reported stolen approximately two years before his arrest. That report, he asserts, was double hearsay that the district court should not have considered, particularly when the report was unreliable; as Sanchez points out, the report did not provide either a serial number for the shotgun that was reported stolen or a specific description of the stolen shotgun that could be matched to the shotgun found in his house. Sanchez is correct to label the report as a form of hearsay, see Pecoraro v. Walls, 286 F.3d 439, 443-44 (7th Cir. 2002), but this designation alone is irrelevant to the issue of whether the district court erred by considering it. A sentencing court may consider a wide variety of information that would be inadmissible at trial, see United States v. Cavender, 228 F.3d 792, 802 (7th Cir.2000), including evidence that is hearsay, see United States v. Davila-Rodriguez, 468 F.3d 1012, 1014 (7th Cir.2006); United States v. Roche, 415 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir.2005). Thus, a sentencing court clearly errs by considering hearsay evidence only if the evidence was devoid of any indicia of reliability. See Davila-Rodriguez, 468 F.3d at 1014; Roche, 415 F.3d at 618; see also Warren, 454 F.3d at 762. We have no quarrel with Sanchez's point that the incident report alone was not reliable evidence. After all, the report stemmed from an unrelated crime that happened two years before Sanchez's arrest. Moreover, as Sanchez points out, the report did not provide the serial number for the gun that was reported stolen, and merely provided a general description of that gun. In fact, there was no information in the report connecting the shotgun that was reported stolen to the shotgun recovered from Sanchez's house. However, Sanchez conveniently ignores that the incident report was not the only evidence the government introduced to show that the shotgun found in his house was stolen. The government also introduced the unrebutted testimony of Detective Johnson, who recounted that she undertook an electronic query for the serial number taken from the shotgun found in Sanchez's house, and discovered that a black 12-gauge Mossberg shotgun with the same serial number was reported stolen to the Verona Police Department. The government further introduced a photocopy of the query's results, which revealed that the shotgun that was reported stolen never was recovered, and that the case remained open with the Verona Police Department as number XXXX-XXXX  the same case number designation on the Verona Police Department incident report. Not only did Johnson's testimony and the serial-number query establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the shotgun recovered from Sanchez's house was stolen, see Birk, 453 F.3d at 899, but the evidence also confirmed the reliability of the incident report by corroborating the information provided within it, see United States v. Martinez, 289 F.3d 1023, 1028-29 (7th Cir.2002) (holding that reliability of hearsay evidence may be established by corroborating evidence); United States v. Thomas, 280 F.3d 1149, 1154 (7th Cir.2002) (same). The district court therefore did not err, clearly or otherwise, by concluding that the shotgun recovered from Sanchez's house was stolen. See Warren, 454 F.3d at 762. C. The District Court's Four-Level Increase of Sanchez's Total Offense Level for Using the Shotgun In Connection with Another Felony and the Reasonableness of His 78-Month Sentence Finally, Sanchez contends that the district court improperly calculated his total offense level by applying a four-level increase on the grounds that he used his firearm in connection with another felony offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). Specifically, he renews his pro se objection to the PSR that he did not use the gun as contemplated by § 2K2.1(b)(5), but instead accepted it merely to facilitate a drug transaction. But at his sentencing hearing Sanchez directed his attorney to withdraw this objection and chose not to renew it. And because Sanchez intentionally relinquished this challenge before the district court, we need not address it on appeal. See United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir.2005) (There may be sound strategic reasons why a criminal defendant will elect to pursue one sentencing argument while also choosing to forego another, and when the defendant selects as a matter of strategy, he also waives those arguments he decided not to present.); United States v. Staples, 202 F.3d 992, 995 (7th Cir.2000) (finding sentencing challenge waived when attorney stated at hearing `I spoke with [defendant] this morning, and he indicated to me that we . . . have no objections to the presentence report'); see also United States v. Cooper, 243 F.3d 411, 416 (7th Cir.2001) (finding argument waived because failure to raise it in district court was not a mere oversight); United States v. Gutierrez, 130 F.3d 330, 332 (8th Cir.1997) (holding that defendant waived argument by making calculated decision not to object). Similarly, Sanchez does not challenge his sentence under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), as unreasonable in light of the sentencing factors that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) outlines. We presume that Sanchez's 78-month sentence is reasonable because it falls within the correctly calculated guidelines range of 70 to 87 months. See Rita v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). Having heard no argument to the contrary, we conclude that it is. See United States v. Dyer, 464 F.3d 741, 744 (7th Cir.2006); United States v. Harper, 463 F.3d 663, 670 (7th Cir.2006).