Opinion ID: 4190535
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: torres alvarez

Text: Miguel Torres Alvarez sold methamphetamine to a police informant and was arrested on his way to a follow-up sale. The police found 217 grams of methamphetamine in Torres Alvarez’s car. At his residence, the police found another 592 grams of methamphetamine (and 125 grams of ice methamphetamine), 583 grams of cocaine, 3,778 grams of marijuana, cash, a handgun, and ammunition. Like Evenson, Torres Alvarez pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. The Guidelines recommended a sentence between 168 and 210 months. The government argued for 168 months. Torres Alvarez asked the district court to vary down to 100 months. Torres Alvarez’s argument for a variance (to the extent he maintains it on appeal) was based on the traumas and difficulties he faced in the past, including “parental abandonment, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and substance abuse.” Growing up, Torres Alvarez was permanently abandoned by his father, abandoned by his mother for several years, causing him to believe another woman was his mother until he was four or five years old, beaten by staff at the orphanage where he lived for a time, molested by his cousins, tricked by his mother into going to Mexico to work in the fields, and compelled to drop out of school after being stabbed and shot at by gang members. As an adult, Torres Alvarez struggled with drinking, using cocaine and other drugs, and gambling, leading to debts he tried to pay by transporting drugs. In light of that background, Torres Alvarez’s lawyer argued “[t]he lack of trust and lack of understanding of how human interactions [work] . . . Mr. Torres must suffer is substantial.” The district court began its explanation of the sentence by noting the difficulty of the sentencing determination in this case, telling Torres Alvarez: “I accept that you have been on a pretty rough road and you’re dealing with some mental health issues perhaps as a result of that, perhaps because of other exposures as well.” Yet the district court found those factors counterbalanced by the seriousness of Torres -6- Alvarez’s crime, particularly the large quantities of drugs involved—“a lot of poison available to a lot of people and a lot of damage to a lot of lives”—and the presence of a gun, as well as the need to avoid unwarranted disparities with the sentences other defendants received. See generally 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (listing sentencing considerations). The district court “conclude[d] that a variance is simply not supported under the record of this case.” The district court “agree[d] . . . that the bottom of the guideline range certainly is fully sufficient” and therefore sentenced Torres Alvarez to 168 months. Affording due deference to the district court, we discern no abuse of discretion in that analysis or conclusion. See, e.g., United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also id. (“If the defendant’s sentence is within the Guidelines range, then we ‘may, but [are] not required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007))). There is no indication the district court “‘g[a]ve[] significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor’” or “‘commit[ted] a clear error of judgment’” in weighing the relevant sentencing factors. Id. (quoting United States v. Kane, 552 F.3d 748, 752 (8th Cir. 2009), vacated, 562 U.S. 1267 (2011)). Nor did the district court “‘fail[] to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight,’” id. (quoting Kane, 552 F.3d at 752), by “erroneously minimiz[ing] the egregious nature of” Torres Alvarez’s circumstances or denying him the “particularized consideration” to which he was entitled, as Torres Alvarez asserts.5 To the contrary, the district court’s explanation makes clear it fully 5 On appeal, Torres Alvarez also faults the district court for not addressing the role of addiction as a contributing cause of his crimes. Torres Alvarez did not clearly present this issue to the district court in his oral or written arguments—the only mention of addiction was in the psychological evaluation he attached to his sentencing memorandum. Further, we think the district court’s reference to Torres Alvarez’s “mental health issues” is best understood, in context, as an acknowledgment of Torres Alvarez’s struggles with addiction. -7- appreciated the considerations Torres Alvarez identified, carefully weighed them against countervailing factors, and simply struck a different balance than Torres Alvarez. That is no grounds for reversal. See, e.g., United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009).