United States v. Alfonso Hayden
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24596
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Hayden pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess and distribute marijuana and attempted money laundering; arrested after DEA surveillance and search revealed ~995 grams of marijuana and ~$80,892 in cash.
- At plea he admitted distributing over 20 pounds of marijuana; district court attributed 15 kg for relevant conduct and calculated an offense level of 15 and criminal history category III, yielding a guidelines range of 24–30 months.
- Government recommended 30 months; Hayden requested time served (~15 months) and/or a below-guidelines variance based on family circumstances and the impending Amendment 782 (which would reduce offense levels).
- The district court imposed a 46-month sentence (16 months above the guidelines range), citing recidivism risk, seriousness of the offense, commission while on supervised release, and skepticism that Hayden would be the primary caregiver for his ill son.
- On appeal Hayden argued procedural unreasonableness: district court failed to adequately consider mitigation, improperly relied on the supervised-release violation, erred by not applying the pending amendment, created sentencing disparities, and failed to give advance notice of an upward variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hayden) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of district court explanation for above-guidelines sentence | Court failed to fully consider mitigation and explain reasons for an above-guidelines sentence | Judge asked counsel if more explanation was wanted; counsel declined; judge gave multiple §3553(a) reasons | Affirmed — explanation was adequate; counsel’s refusal to request more detail undermines the claim |
| Reliance on supervised-release violation as basis for variance | Improper to rely on supervised-release violation because criminal history points already accounted for it | Judge may weigh supervised-release conduct and find the 2-point increase inadequate to reflect recidivism/danger | Affirmed — judge may consider it and impose an above-guidelines sentence with adequate justification |
| Refusal to apply pending Amendment 782 or avoid disparities based on it | Judge should grant variance or wait because Amendment 782 would lower offense level | District court not required to grant a variance for a pending amendment or delay sentencing | Affirmed — denial of variance was discretionary and not erroneous; defendant may seek §3582(c)(2) relief later if eligible |
| Family circumstances (son’s health) as grounds for leniency | Exceptional family need (ill son) warrants a lower sentence | Judge considered family circumstances but disbelieved Hayden would provide care given his past absence | Affirmed — court considered the factor and permissibly rejected it |
| Notice requirement for upward variance | Judge should have given advance notice that an above-guidelines sentence was possible | No Rule 32(h) notice required after Booker; Irizarry confirms no advance notice for nonmandatory guidelines | Affirmed — no notice required for upward variance under current law |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sentencing court may impose a non-guidelines sentence if adequately justified)
- United States v. Donelli, 747 F.3d 936 (7th Cir.) (defense counsel’s refusal to seek further explanation limits claims of inadequate explanation)
- United States v. Deloney, 578 F.3d 690 (7th Cir.) (district court not required to vary for a pending guideline amendment)
- United States v. Anderson, 580 F.3d 639 (7th Cir.) (defendant must identify concrete comparators to prove unwarranted disparity)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (Guidelines are advisory; mandatory notice requirement for upward departures altered)