United States v. Arturo Bustos, 912 F.3d 1059

Arturo Bustos pleaded guilty to one-count conspiracy to distribute 995 grams of heroin to an undercover officer and was sentenced to 100 months’ imprisonment (within the Guidelines range).
The drug transaction involved four co-defendants; Bustos participated in phone calls arranging the sale, met the undercover officer, and helped verify quantity and price.
District court calculated Bustos’s criminal history as Category V (including a 2009 conviction that flowed from a 1990 charge), producing an advisory range of 100–125 months; Bustos did not contest Guidelines math.
Bustos sought a below-Guidelines 60-month sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), arguing his criminal history was over-represented, his role was minor, his age and poor health reduced recidivism risk, and his deportable status would limit BOP program access.
The district court considered those arguments but emphasized the seriousness of trafficking a large heroin quantity, Bustos’s extensive prior conduct (including committing the instant offense while on parole), and Bustos’s significant role once he joined the conspiracy; it imposed the 100-month sentence.

Issue	Bustos’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Procedural adequacy of sentencing	Court failed to meaningfully consider § 3553(a) factors and Bustos’s mitigation (age, health, deportation)	District court sufficiently considered arguments and had reasoned basis for sentence	Affirmed — no procedural error; court adequately considered factors
Criminal history weighting	1990/2009 conviction over-represented Bustos’s criminal history; lowered category warranted	Prior convictions properly counted; flight from arrest not mitigating	Affirmed — criminal history enhancement appropriate
Relative culpability / sentence disparity	Bustos had a minor/late role vs. co-defendants; lower sentence should avoid disparity	Bustos played a significant role once involved; longer sentence justified by his record	Affirmed — court properly assessed role and disparity explained by prior history
Substantive reasonableness of 100-month sentence	Sentence is excessive/virtually life due to over-represented history and mitigation	Within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable; Bustos failed to rebut presumption	Affirmed — within-Guidelines sentence substantively reasonable

United States v. Banks, 828 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2016) (de novo review of procedural sentencing claims)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural error and reasoned consideration of § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Martin, 718 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2013) (district court must consider defendant’s principal nonfrivolous leniency arguments)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (judge must show reasoned basis for sentencing decision)
United States v. Panaigua-Verdugo, 537 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2008) (district court need not list § 3553(a) factors in checklist fashion)
United States v. Williams, 425 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2005) (record must confirm meaningful consideration of § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2005) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence)
United States v. Cunningham, 883 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2018) (defendant bears burden to rebut presumption of reasonableness)