Opinion ID: 2720466
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: First sentencing hearing

Text: Neither party moved for a downward variance.7 At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Sanchez-Leon’s counsel asked for a 210-month (17.5 years) sentence as agreed upon in the plea agreement. He relied on Mr. Sanchez-Leon’s family, employment potential, age, and deportability as reasons to impose 17.5 years. The Government agreed with defense 5 The district court did not examine the other four factors because, based on the three factors, it believed Mr. Sanchez-Leon could not establish a “fair and just reason” to withdraw the plea. ROA, Vol. III at 57. 6 Nor does either party on appeal. See Aplt. Br. at 39; Aplee. Br. at 11. 7 Mr. Sanchez-Leon could not move for a downward variance below the stipulated sentence because he agreed not to do so in his plea agreement. ROA, Vol. I at 70. -7- counsel and further argued 17.5 years satisfies the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Unconvinced, the district court stated: “[N]obody has filed a motion for a variant sentence, and I don’t understand what the basis is for a variant sentence here.” ROA, Vol. III at 67. The Government responded that age and deportation weighed in favor of 17.5 years. Defense counsel responded by again discussing Mr. Sanchez-Leon’s family, his age upon release, and his deportability. Defense counsel presented additional factors: Mr. Sanchez-Leon had no criminal history, some of his co-defendants received shorter sentences, and the Guidelines for methamphetamine possession and distribution are harsh. Id. at 69-73. The district court said that, because the plea agreement was submitted under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B), it was not compelled to sentence Mr. Sanchez-Leon to 17.5 years, nor was it convinced a downward variance was warranted. It nonetheless rescheduled the sentencing hearing so the Government could file a motion and further develop its downward variance arguments.