United States v. Annette Sandoval
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25817
7th Cir.2011Background
- Sandoval orchestrated conspiracy to steal clientele books from high-end department stores in 2007, using stolen credit card numbers to order merchandise.
- Conspirators perpetrated theft, fencing, or returns of merchandise for cash or credit after obtaining goods.
- Loss-prevention investigations led to convictions of seven individuals; three defendants appeal the sentences.
- Sandoval was convicted on conspiracy to commit access device fraud, attempted possession of access devices, and aggravated identity theft; sentence included a guideline-range calculation under amended § 2B1.1 and a consecutive term for aggravated identity theft.
- Vanderhack intercepted packages at delivery and was found obstructing justice based on an in-courthouse encounter with victims, yielding a 2-level enhancement.
- Hicks served as lookout, cooperated with authorities, and was sentenced well below the guideline range, with the court highlighting individualized consideration of personal circumstances and cooperation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly applied amended § 2B1.1 to Sandoval's victims. | Sandoval argues the 2009 amendment shouldn't apply; no proven cardholder harm. | Sandoval contends the court erred by applying the amended victim definition. | Amended § 2B1.1 applied; 65 victims counted; sentence affirmed. |
| Whether the district court treated the guidelines as mandatory. | Sandoval argues the court treated guidelines as mandatory. | Court understood authority to deviate but chose not to; policy-based deviation rejected. | No abuse of discretion; court did not treat guidelines as mandatory. |
| Whether the amended guidelines create an ex post facto problem. | Sandoval asserts retroactive application of guidelines increases punishment. | Guidelines are advisory; Demaree controls. | No ex post facto violation; Demaree remains good law. |
| Whether Vanderhack’s hallway remark constituted obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1. | Obscene but not necessarily obstructive; intent unclear. | Remarks were made with intent to influence testimony. | 2-level enhancement warranted; conduct shown to be obstructive in context. |
| Whether Hicks’ below-guidelines sentence was reasonable given her circumstances. | Hicks argues extensive history and recent reform warrant leniency. | Court accounted for cooperation, family needs, and reform; still below guidelines. | Sentence affirmed as reasonable under § 3553(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (framework for reasonableness review of sentences with proper guideline calculation)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (presumption of reasonableness absent procedural error)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (deviating from guidelines on policy grounds is permissible)
- United States v. Allday, 542 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2009) (court may consider advisory nature of guidelines and independently assess reasonableness)
- United States v. Curb, 626 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirmative authority to vary based on § 3553(a) factors)