United States v. Francisco Sanchez
697 F. App'x 476
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- In November 2014 an undercover officer bought 27 grams of methamphetamine from Francisco Sanchez; in October 2015 police seized 333 grams of prepackaged methamphetamine, a loaded .45 handgun, and five cell phones from his car after his arrest.
- Sanchez was indicted on five counts including possession with intent to distribute, distribution, conspiracy, felon-in-possession, and using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.
- The Presentence Investigation Report classified Sanchez as a career offender and, without objection, the district court adopted its recommendations, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of 188–235 months.
- The government sought an upward variance to the statutory maximum of 240 months; Sanchez sought the low end of the Guidelines range.
- The district court imposed an upward variance to 240 months, citing the seriousness of the offense (large meth quantities, firearm possession by a felon), Sanchez’s extensive prior convictions and pattern of recidivism, and violent conduct while detained.
- On appeal Sanchez challenged the substantive reasonableness of the upward variance, arguing the district court relied on factors already accounted for in the Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 240‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable | Sanchez: variance was improper because the court relied on criminal history, offense characteristics, and recidivism already reflected in the Guidelines | Government/District Court: §3553(a) permits consideration of those factors and an upward variance when justified | Affirmed: sentence not substantively unreasonable; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Abrica‑Sanchez, 808 F.3d 330 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review: highly deferential abuse‑of‑discretion)
- United States v. Barrett, 552 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2009) (a court may vary upward based on criminal history even if Guidelines already account for it)
- United States v. Cook, 698 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2012) (reiterating that §3553(a) factors may justify variance)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (rarely reverse as substantively unreasonable; substantial sentencing discretion retained by district courts)