Opinion ID: 2979989
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Challenge to the Sentences

Text: This court reviews a district court’s sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for reasonableness. United Sates v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 578 (6th Cir. 2007). When a defendant fails to object, we review allegations of procedural error for plain error. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389-90 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). This court applies a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness to sentences imposed within the advisory guidelines range. Id. at 389-90.
The Domenech brothers contest the court’s failure fully to consider their age in setting the sentence. The court, however, noted both of their ages at sentencing, explicitly discussing Alejandro’s age in crafting a sentence to ensure that upon release he would be incapable of further criminality. Both defendants also contest the fine imposed by the court, claiming an inability to pay. A defendant’s failure to object to the imposition of a fine forfeits any right to appeal that fine. United States v. Tosca, 18 F.3d 1352, 1355 (6th Cir. 1994). Neither defendant objected to the fine, thus forfeiting the issue.
William Domenech challenges his sentence as both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. However, he offers no persuasive challenge to the length of his sentence or to the - 10 - Nos. 08-1220 & 08-1221 United States v. Domenech procedure used to calculate it. Rather, he argues for the first time on appeal that this court should remand for re-sentencing as a crack disparity case. Specifically, he claims that the district court unreasonably failed to discuss the new guidelines for crack disparities in calculating his sentence. To the contrary, the court sentenced defendant using the correct version of the amended guidelines, which provided for a reduction for certain crack cocaine offenses. While a later amendment changed the method for calculating the base level offense for crimes involving cocaine base, the district court applied the current version at the time of sentencing. Under 18 U.S.C § 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii), a district court applies the guidelines “in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced.” In doing so, the district court did not commit plain error. Defendant also argues that the district court erred in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement for physical restraint of a victim. See U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3. Defendant contends that, while he may have physically restrained that individual, that restraint was not related to the offense of conviction and is therefore inappropriate. We disagree. The guidelines define offense broadly to include all relevant conduct. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(H). Because defendant’s restraint of this victim fell within the ambit of relevant conduct, the district court did not err. Finally, defendant argues that the district court erred in considering uncharged conduct and quantities of drugs. The district court, however, is permitted to find facts that increase the sentence above the statutory minimum so long as the sentence remains below the statutory maximum for the quantity found by the jury. United States v. Solorio, 337 F.3d 580, 597 (6th Cir. 2003); See United States v. Mayberry, 540 F.3d 506, 516-17 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting that judge may find facts by preponderance of the evidence so long as it does not raise sentence above statutory maximum). - 11 - Nos. 08-1220 & 08-1221 United States v. Domenech Because the district judge did not find facts permitting him to exceed the statutory maximum, this claim lacks merit.
Like his brother, Alejandro Domenech challenges the reasonableness of his lengthy prison term and his $7,380 fine as excessive. In our view, the district judge properly imposed the sentence after careful consideration of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, with a specific emphasis upon defendant’s prior criminal history. Defendant also contends that the court improperly punished him for indicating he would challenge the conviction on appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel. Throughout the course of the trial, defendant repeatedly complained about his counsel. At sentencing, the district judge raised the issue. Later, defendant stated that he wanted to appeal due to ineffective counsel. In crafting the sentence, the judge noted that defendant lacked remorse about the nature of his actions and continued to blame others. While defendant argues on appeal that the judge improperly considered his statements about ineffective counsel in determining that he failed to take responsibility for his actions, he did not raise this objection below. In sum, we find that the district court properly considered the various statutory and guidelines factors in crafting Alejandro Domenech’s sentence.