United States v. Efrain Longarica
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23049
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Longarica, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. illegally in 1995 at age 16 and was deported in 1998.
- He unlawfully reentered and moved to Minnesota in 1999, later pleading guilty in 2002 to an aggravated drug felony and receiving a 60-month sentence and deportation in 2007.
- In 2011 he was arrested in Minnesota for alleged heroin distribution and admitted another unlawful reentry in 2009; he pled guilty in June 2011 to unlawful reentry after removal following an aggravated felony conviction.
- At sentencing, the district court calculated a total offense level of 21 and placed him in Criminal History Category III, yielding a 46–57 month advisory range.
- Longarica moved for a downward departure to CH II and for a downward variance to 24 months based on rehabilitation, family ties, and other factors; the government urged 46 months.
- The district court denied the requests and imposed a 46-month sentence; the court stated 3553(a) factors would support the same sentence even if CH III objection was sustained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by not recognizing discretion to vary downward due to Fast Track unavailability | Longarica argues district court lacked discretion to downward-variance for Fast Track absence. | Government contends defendant did not pursue this ground and court did not err in treating it as unavailable. | No error; lack of pursuit and district court’s conduct showed no misunderstanding of discretion. |
| Whether a passing reference to Fast-Track four-level departure required sua sponte acknowledgement | Longarica asserts the reference implied broader discretion to depart downward. | Government contends the reference did not obligate sua sponte recognition of broader discretion. | No sua sponte acknowledgment required; passing reference insufficient to compel reconsideration. |
| Whether § 5K3.1 Fast-Track departures apply where government motion is required and unavailable | Longarica relies on Fast-Track as a basis for greater variance. | Government notes § 5K3.1 requires government motion and eligibility; not available here. | Inapplicable here; § 5K3.1 factors were not satisfied because no government motion. |
| Whether Jimenez-Perez governs or distinguishes this case on discretionary variance | Longarica argues Jimenez-Perez should control to permit downward variance. | Government contends Jimenez-Perez is distinguishable as defendant did not pursue the issue at sentencing. | Jimenez-Perez distinguishable; no error in the district court’s approach; affirmance appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jimenez-Perez, 659 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2011) (recognizes discretion to vary downward despite lack of Fast Track in district)
- United States v. Elodio-Benitez, 672 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 2012) (discusses lack of pursuit of Fast-Track issue and discretion)
- United States v. Paulino-Duarte, 670 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2012) (recognizes that passing reference does not imply broader discretion)
- United States v. Ramirez, 675 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2011) (disparities in fast-track contexts; relevance to variance considerations)