United States v. Carlos Cruz
701 F. App'x 143
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Carlos Cruz and three of his children were indicted for conspiracy to distribute heroin; Cruz pled guilty to Count 1.
- Sentencing Guidelines range was 87–108 months based on Cruz’s offense level and criminal history; Cruz requested the low end (87 months).
- District Court reviewed the § 3553(a) factors, noted Cruz’s sobriety attempts and employment, but emphasized Cruz’s addiction, early departure from rehab, leadership role, and recruiting family into the enterprise.
- The District Court imposed a 96-month sentence (within the Guidelines), stating it found no basis under § 3553(a) to vary downward.
- Cruz did not request a variance at sentencing, nor did he object to the sentence after it was imposed; he raised the procedural § 3553(a) claim for the first time on appeal.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding the variance argument was not preserved for appeal and thus not properly before the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court procedurally erred by failing to adequately consider § 3553(a) factors before denying a variance | Cruz: Court failed to specify reasons for denying a variance under § 3553(a)(1) (personal history/character) and § 3553(a)(6) (disparity) — should have considered sobriety and heroic conduct; disparity with co-defendants | Government/District Court: Court reviewed the record, considered letters and mitigating points, addressed addiction and leadership role, and explained why no variance was warranted; Cruz did not request a variance at sentencing | Court: Claim forfeited—Cruz never sought a variance or objected at sentencing, so issue not preserved; affirmed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Begin, 696 F.3d 405 (3d Cir. 2012) (record can show consideration of § 3553(a) factors; rote statements insufficient when specific colorable argument made)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for procedural reasonableness review)
- United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2014) (plain-error review applies when no contemporaneous objection at sentencing)
- Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 35 F.3d 840 (3d Cir. 1994) (issue raised for first time on appeal is not properly before the court)
- United States v. Brown, 578 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2009) (variances are discretionary and based on judge’s review of all § 3553(a) factors)