United States v. Francisco Gasca-Ruiz
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5893
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Francisco Gasca-Ruiz pleaded guilty to transporting undocumented immigrants in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 and was sentenced after an undisputed Presentence Report.
- During a high-speed chase near the border, five passengers were detained; two had been in the trunk and one reported burns and mild finger lacerations from trying to escape.
- The PSR recommended a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(7)(A) for "bodily injury" (defined in commentary as "any significant injury; e.g., an injury that is painful and obvious, or is of a type for which medical attention ordinarily would be sought").
- The district court applied the two-level enhancement, finding lacerations and a small burn, and sentenced Gasca-Ruiz to 37 months (top of guideline range).
- On appeal the parties disputed the standard of review for applying Guidelines to facts: Gasca-Ruiz urged de novo review; the government urged deferential review; an intra-circuit split prompted en banc consideration.
- The Ninth Circuit held the district court identified the correct legal standard and, reviewing the guideline application for abuse of discretion, affirmed the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Gasca‑Ruiz's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for a district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines to facts | Review should be de novo | Review should be deferential (abuse of discretion) | Generally review for abuse of discretion; prior contrary Ninth Circuit statements overruled |
| Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard (definition of "bodily injury") | Court misapplied/overreached in labeling minor injuries "bodily injury" | Court applied the § 2L1.1(b)(7)(A) standard correctly | Court identified the correct legal standard (no error) and de novo review of that identification applies |
| Whether the facts supported the § 2L1.1(b)(7)(A) enhancement | Mild lacerations and minor burn are not "significant" bodily injury | Injuries were painful, obvious, and of a type for which medical attention would ordinarily be sought | Under abuse-of-discretion review, district court did not abuse its discretion; enhancement affirmed |
| Whether allocution right was violated | Sentence imposed without adequate allocution opportunity | Defendant was afforded opportunity to speak | Rejected; allocution claim summarily denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 (2001) (holding certain guideline-application decisions should be reviewed deferentially because district courts are better positioned to make fact-specific determinations)
- Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (noting district courts’ sentencing experience and institutional advantages)
- Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) (explaining general rules allow more leeway in case-by-case determinations)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (fact-bound resolutions cannot be made uniform by appellate de novo review)
- Hinkson v. United States, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. en banc 2009) (defining abuse-of-discretion standard as "illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences")
- Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104 (1985) (standard-of-review inquiry focuses on which forum is better situated to decide)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (discussing categorical approach to determining whether a prior conviction qualifies as a crime of violence)