United States v. Filiberto Chavez
19-10374
| 9th Cir. | Dec 15, 2021Background
- Filiberto Chavez was convicted at trial of drug offenses (methamphetamine distribution/conspiracy) and prostitution-related offenses; district court initially sentenced him to 400 months.
- A PSR applied a career-offender enhancement based on a prior conviction that Chavez disputed; initial Guidelines range with the enhancement was 360 months to life.
- After the first sentencing hearing but before entry of judgment, the government discovered the disputed prior conviction did not belong to Chavez; the court held judgment in abeyance and scheduled a second hearing.
- The corrected Guidelines range became 210–262 months; at resentencing the court imposed 250 months (a 150-month reduction).
- Chavez appealed, arguing substantive and procedural unreasonableness and that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Chavez: sentence longer than necessary; court failed to account for disparities with co-defendants and engaged in impermissible double counting | Gov't: Court meaningfully considered §3553(a) factors; factual differences (gang influence, trial vs plea, attitude, parole violations, ages) justify longer sentence; no double counting | Affirmed — sentence substantively reasonable; court adequately considered §3553(a); no impermissible double counting |
| Procedural reasonableness / sentencing explanation | Chavez: court failed to give adequate procedural explanation at sentencing | Gov't: Chavez did not timely object; plain-error review applies; within-Guidelines sentence need not have lengthy explanation; court stated reasons tied to §3553(a) | Affirmed — no plain error; explanation sufficed under Rita and Carty principles |
| Rule 32 objections to PSR and need for full resentencing | Chavez: court did not properly rule on PSR objections and should have conducted a full resentencing after correction | Gov't: Court adopted PSR, stated disagreement with objections, held judgment in abeyance, then conducted a second sentencing; resentencing reduced sentence substantially | Affirmed — no plain error under Rule 32; court either ruled or found ruling unnecessary and resentenced appropriately |
| Criminal-history / career-offender calculation error | Chavez: prior conviction was misattributed, so career-offender enhancement was improper and inflated sentence | Gov't: Error was identified before judgment; court held hearing and resentenced under corrected range | Affirmed — correction and second hearing remedied the error; sentence adjusted accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rudd, 662 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir.) (reasonableness standard and §3553(a) consideration)
- United States v. Pham, 545 F.3d 712 (9th Cir.) (impermissible double counting principle)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Sup. Ct.) (within-Guidelines sentences do not require lengthy explanation)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.) (judges should normally explain acceptance/rejection of specific nonfrivolous §3553(a) arguments)
- United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir.) (plain-error review when defendant fails to object at sentencing)
- United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. en banc) (four-part plain error framework)
- United States v. Wijegoonaratna, 922 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (Rule 32 plain-error review)