United States v. Cardenas-Mireles
446 F. App'x 991
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Cardenas-Mireles, a Mexican citizen over 60 with extensive prior run-ins, pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and faced a Guidelines range of 77–96 months.
- At sentencing, he moved for a downward variance citing cultural assimilation, military service, mental health, and Guidelines unreasonableness for reentry offenses; the government opposed.
- The district court accepted the plea, computed the range as 77–96 months, and expressed concern about the defendant’s health and homelessness but ultimately imposed the top end of the range, 96 months, with a recommendation for an age-appropriate facility and medical support.
- Cardenas-Mireles appealed arguing (1) procedural error under Tapia and Cordery for lengthening sentence to obtain medical care, and (2) substantive unreasonableness under §3553(a).
- The panel affirmed, holding the district court’s health considerations did not drive the sentence and that the within-range sentence was not substantively unreasonable given the extreme criminal history.
- The court noted the decision would have likely remained the same absent health considerations, sustaining the 96-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court impermissibly lengthened the sentence to obtain medical care | Cardenas-Mireles argues Tapia/Cordery prohibit lengthening. | Government asserts health was not the sole or primary driver. | No plain error; health did not alter the sentence. |
| Whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable under §3553(a) | Mitigating factors outweighed by extreme criminal history. | District court properly weighed factors; within-range due to extreme history. | Not abused; within GUIDELINES range and not unreasonably weighted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (cannot lengthen sentence to promote rehabilitation)
- Cordery, 656 F.3d 1103 (2011) (plain-error review for within-guidelines sentence based on rehab needs)
- Ruiz-Terrazas, 477 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2007) (specific discussion of §3553(a) factors not required for within-range sentences)
- Brown, 316 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2003) (integrity/fairness evaluation under plain-error test)
- Gambino-Zavala, 539 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2008) (discretion in weighing §3553(a) factors within range)