United States v. Andrew Espinoza
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14493
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Andrew Jose Espinoza pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B).
- Revised PSR designated Espinoza a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on a prior hazardous-drug felony and two prior felonies the PSR characterized as crimes of violence (terroristic threats — Nebraska; burglary of a building — Texas).
- Espinoza objected to the career-offender designation and also argued his 188-month sentence was unreasonable.
- Before resolving the career-offender question, the district court warned it was considering an upward variance based on Espinoza’s extensive criminal history and his pretrial-release revocation for threatening halfway-house staff.
- The district court applied the career-offender enhancement, raising the Guidelines range from 130–168 months to 188–235 months, then imposed a sentence of 188 months and explained it would have imposed the same upward variance even if Espinoza were not a career offender.
- Espinoza appealed, challenging the career-offender classification and arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Espinoza qualifies as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because two prior convictions are "crimes of violence" | Espinoza: the terroristic threats and burglary convictions are not crimes of violence and thus do not support career-offender status | Government: those prior convictions qualify, supporting the career-offender enhancement | Court: Declined to decide the career-offender question as unnecessary because the upward variance alone justified the sentence |
| Whether the 188-month sentence is substantively reasonable | Espinoza: sentence is unreasonable and excessive | Government: upward variance justified by extensive criminal history and threats while on pretrial release; § 3553(a) factors support sentence | Court: Sentence is reasonable; affirmed because district court adequately relied on § 3553(a) factors and clearly would have imposed the same upward variance irrespective of Guidelines range |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hentges, 817 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2016) (upward variance affirmed where district court relied on extensive criminal history and poor supervision performance)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (district courts may base sentences on factors independent of the Guidelines and should explain reasoning when appropriate)
- United States v. Moralez, 808 F.3d 362 (8th Cir. 2015) (review of variances: no presumption of unreasonableness for outside-Guidelines sentences; appellate deference to district court’s § 3553(a) determinations)
Disposition: Judgment affirmed.