United States v. Abasta-Ruiz
409 F. App'x 949
7th Cir.2011Background
- Abasta-Ruiz, a Mexican citizen, has lived illegally in the United States since 1985 and was removed and returned multiple times, including after 1998, 2000, and 2004.
- He pleaded guilty to unlawful presence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and was sentenced within the guidelines to 77 months.
- Sixteen districts have fast-track or early disposition programs; the Northern District of Illinois does not have such a program.
- At sentencing, the court calculated a total offense level of 21 and a Category VI criminal history, yielding a guideline range of 77–96 months, and sentenced him to 77 months.
- Abasta-Ruiz argued for a below-range sentence based on the absence of fast-track treatment in his district; the district court considered but rejected this.
- Abasta-Ruiz also argued that cooperation with the DEA should weigh toward leniency; the district court addressed cooperation and sentenced at the bottom of the range for that reason.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court properly consider the absence of a fast-track program in applying §3553(a)? | Abasta-Ruiz argues the court ignored fast-track disparities. | Court contends it acknowledged the issue but declined leniency based on reasons discussed. | Yes; court considered the fast-track issue and declined leniency. |
| Was Abasta-Ruiz eligible for a fast-track reduction in any other district? | Abasta-Ruiz contends he could have benefited from fast-track in another district. | Court held eligibility was not shown and that the reduction would not apply. | No; no district would have applied a fast-track reduction to him. |
| Did the district court properly weigh cooperation with the DEA in sentencing? | Abasta-Ruiz contends cooperation warranted additional leniency. | Court considered cooperation; no error in weighing it as a factor. | Yes; the court considered cooperation and still sentenced at the bottom of the range. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reyes-Hernandez, 624 F.3d 405 (7th Cir. 2010) (recognizes district courts may consider absence of fast-track in §3553(a) discretion)
- United States v. Olmeda-Garcia, 613 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2010) (discusses eligibility impacts for fast-track reductions)
- United States v. Ramirez-Silva, 369 Fed.Appx. 744 (7th Cir. 2010) (cites limitations on fast-track eligibility considerations)
- United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2008) (discusses district restrictions for fast-track eligibility (prior conviction as disqualifier))
- United States v. Etchin, 614 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirms district court may consider cooperation as a factor)
- United States v. Diekemper, 604 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2010) (discusses weighting of cooperation and mitigation evidence)