United States v. Erick Martinez
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12112
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Martinez joined the Latin Kings in 1998 and remained connected to the Chapter through 2001, assisting in crack distribution in Humboldt Park.
- He pled guilty in 2003 to drug conspiracy under a plea agreement and began cooperating with the government.
- He fled before sentencing in 2003 and was rearrested in 2008.
- In 2010 he pled guilty again to drug distribution and conspiracy, this time without a plea agreement.
- Sentencing occurred on August 19, 2010; defense and government disputed cooperation and other factors.
- The district court calculated an offense level of 38 with two upward adjustments for obstruction and gun possession, but downward adjustments for acceptance of responsibility and a downward variance yielded a 240-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the obstruction of justice adjustment was proper | Martinez argues he did not willfully obstruct justice | Martinez contends his failure to appear was not willful given fear of gangs | Obstruction adjustment applied; willfulness satisfied by conscious choice not to appear |
| Whether the 240-month sentence is reasonable under §3553(a) | Sentence too long and unwarranted disparity under §3553(a) | District court properly weighed §3553(a) factors and conceded below-guidelines sentence was reasonable | Sentence affirmed as reasonable under abuse-of-discretion review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Taylor, 272 F.3d 980 (7th Cir. 2001) (interpreting willfulness for obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. Gage, 183 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 1999) (discusses willfulness and obstruction guidance)
- United States v. Nurek, 578 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2009) (requires specific intent for obstruction in some contexts)
- United States v. McGiffen, 267 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2001) (discusses willfulness threshold for obstruction)
- United States v. Curb, 626 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2010) (holding that voluntary decision not to appear can support obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. Bolden, 279 F.3d 498 (7th Cir. 2002) (failure to appear triggers §3C1.1 where intent to obstruct exists)
- United States v. Freitag, 230 F.3d 1019 (7th Cir. 2000) (perjury-related obstruction allows adjustment if predicate is present)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes procedural and substantive reasonableness framework for sentences)
- United States v. Ashqar, 582 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2009) (illustrates consideration of §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Tahzib, 513 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2008) (addresses district court’s handling of mitigation arguments)
- United States v. Turner, 569 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2009) (reaffirms review for reasonableness)
- United States v. Jackson, 547 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2008) (presumption of reasonableness for below-guidelines sentence)