United States v. Francisco Castillo
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17746
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiring to make and sell false identification documents (e.g., permanent-residency IDs) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(1), (2), (f).
- Guidelines range was 37–46 months; district judge imposed 60 months, above range but within the statutory 15-year max.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief challenging the appealability of an above-guidelines sentence and movant sought to withdraw from representation.
- Court discusses appellate review when a sentence departs from the guidelines, focusing on whether the departure is relative (percentage) or absolute.
- The district court relied on an “encouraged departure” for substantial upward variance due to the number of documents (over 100) and related aggravating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of appellate review for above-guidelines sentences | Castillo argues court must assess reasonableness with extensive justification | Castillo (defendant) contends minimal justification suffices for encouraged departure | Relative deviation justification favored; not needed if encouraged departure present. |
| Impact of the 100+ document rule on sentence | Government-supported 60-month sentence justified by document count | Judge had less obligation to provide full reasoning due to open-ended up-departure provision | Encouraged departure properly used; 39% max guideline rise supported by count. |
| Appropriate metric for variance magnitude | Percentage deviation reflects variance magnitude | Use offense-level increases to gauge variance | Court accepts use of offense-level check as corroborating measure. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Courtland, 642 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2011) (affirmation of need for compelling justification as departure grows)
- United States v. Dean, 414 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2005) (baseline for respect to Gall and reasonableness review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (requirement of sufficiently compelling justification for variance)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (upward/downward adjustments may rest on policy disagreements with Guidelines)