United States v. Gregory Terronez
926 F.3d 390
7th Cir.2019Background
- Terronez pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); district court accepted the plea and later sentenced him to 110 months’ imprisonment (within the Guidelines).
- PSR applied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) because Terronez had two prior Illinois felony drug‑trafficking convictions (each punishable by >1 year), producing a base offense level of 24; adjustments yielded total offense level 25 and Criminal History Category VI.
- The Guidelines range was 110–120 months (capped by the § 922(g) ten‑year statutory maximum); Terronez did not object to the Guidelines calculation but sought a below‑Guidelines variance to 84 months.
- Terronez argued the base offense level overstated his danger because his prior drug convictions were nonviolent, involved moderate quantities, and he had no history of weapon use or violence—relying on the reasoning of United States v. Fogle.
- At sentencing the district court acknowledged Terronez’s nonviolent history and that some felon‑in‑possession cases might warrant a variance, but concluded under § 3553(a) factors that a within‑Guidelines sentence was necessary given the danger posed by combining drug activity and firearm possession.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the district court adequately considered Terronez’s mitigation argument and permissibly declined a variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately consider an as‑applied challenge to §2K2.1(a)(2) and refusing a downward variance | Terronez: §2K2.1(a)(2) overstates his risk because his predicate drug felonies were nonviolent, involved moderate amounts, and he has no firearm/violence history; thus a below‑Guidelines sentence is warranted | Government: The court reasonably applied §3553(a), found the combination of drugs and a gun dangerous regardless of prior nonviolence, and properly imposed a within‑Guidelines sentence | The court affirmed: no procedural error—the district court sufficiently considered Terronez’s mitigation and lawfully declined a variance |
Key Cases Cited
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (district courts must address nonfrivolous mitigation arguments; Guidelines are advisory)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (requirement that court show meaningful consideration of §3553(a) factors and parties’ arguments)
- United States v. Davis, 764 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2014) (court may consider mitigation implicitly and imprecisely)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (Guidelines reflect a rough approximation of appropriate sentences; courts may disagree with Guidelines for policy reasons)
- United States v. Rosales, 813 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2016) (distinguishes as‑applied challenges from blanket policy challenges to the Guidelines)
- United States v. Fogle, 694 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (E.D. Wis. 2010) (imposed below‑Guidelines sentence where prior drug predicate was minor and nonviolent; relied on the claim that §2K2.1 may overstate risk)
- United States v. Miranda, 505 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2007) (sentencing courts must conduct individualized inquiry under §3553(a) when considering mitigation)