United States v. Amuary Villa
711 F. App'x 300
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- In March 2011 Villa and co-conspirators burglarized the Core‑Mark cigarette warehouse in Kentucky, stealing ~34,006 cartons of cigarettes valued at $1,486,164.45; Villa pled guilty to conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and theft of an interstate shipment (18 U.S.C. § 659).
- Presentence report (PSIR) identified two prior federal convictions arising from an Eli Lilly pharmaceutical warehouse burglary/sales scheme (Connecticut and Florida), for which Villa received concurrent federal sentences (98 and 140 months).
- PSIR calculated Villa’s total offense level (after adjustments and acceptance) as 19, later raised to 21 by the district court based on intended loss, and a criminal‑history score of 15 (category VI) that included the Florida/Connecticut convictions.
- At sentencing Villa sought (1) to have the Florida/Connecticut convictions treated as relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 (which would affect Guidelines calculations and permit concurrent sentencing under § 5G1.3) and (2) to avoid a criminal‑history increase under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2. He also challenged restitution on the ground the court did not make an ability‑to‑pay finding.
- The district court found the prior convictions were not relevant conduct or part of a common scheme, imposed a 77‑month sentence to run consecutive to the prior federal sentences, and ordered restitution of $1,486,164.45. Villa appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Villa's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida/Connecticut convictions are "relevant conduct" to the Core‑Mark offense under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 | The prior Eli Lilly offenses were part of the same course/scheme (same actors, similar MO, overlapping timeframe) and thus should be relevant conduct | The prior offenses involved different victim, property type, participants and were separate incidents not sufficiently connected | Court held prior convictions were not relevant conduct (different victim/purpose, lack of regularity, attenuated nexus) |
| Whether district court abused discretion by imposing a consecutive sentence instead of concurrent under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 | Concurrent sentence appropriate if prior conduct is relevant; argued § 5G1.3(b) supports concurrency | District court considered § 3553(a) factors and § 5G1.3 commentary and explained reasons for consecutive sentence | Court affirmed discretion to impose consecutive sentence after considering § 3553(a) and Guidelines; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether criminal‑history calculation (including 3‑point increment for the Florida/Connecticut convictions) was erroneous under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 | If prior convictions were relevant conduct, they would not increase criminal history and he would receive a 6‑point reduction | Because prior convictions were not relevant conduct, criminal‑history calculation was correct | Court upheld criminal‑history calculation; not plain error because underlying relevant‑conduct finding was correct |
| Whether restitution order should be vacated for failure to assess ability to pay | Court should have determined ability to pay before imposing restitution | MVRA makes restitution mandatory for property offenses regardless of present ability to pay; court considered PSIR and waived fines/costs due to inability to pay | Court held MVRA mandates restitution regardless of ability to pay; district court adequately considered financial circumstances; restitution affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review and abuse‑of‑discretion standard for sentencing)
- United States v. Henry, 819 F.3d 856 (6th Cir. 2016) (definition of "part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan")
- United States v. Hodge, 805 F.3d 675 (6th Cir. 2015) (factors for common scheme: common victims, accomplices, purpose, modus operandi)
- United States v. Hill, 79 F.3d 1477 (6th Cir. 1996) (factors: similarity, regularity, time interval for same‑course‑of‑conduct analysis)
- United States v. Berry, 565 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2009) (district court discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentence and § 3553(a) consideration)
- United States v. Johnson, 553 F.3d 990 (6th Cir. 2009) (requirement that record reflect consideration of § 5G1.3 and rationale for consecutive sentences)
- United States v. Vandeberg, 201 F.3d 805 (6th Cir. 2000) (MVRA requires restitution for property offenses irrespective of defendant’s ability to pay)
- United States v. Dunigan, 163 F.3d 979 (6th Cir. 1999) (district court abused discretion ordering restitution schedule impossible for indigent defendant)
- United States v. Coppenger, 775 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 2015) (standards for reviewing sentencing procedural/substantive reasonableness)