United States v. Guadalupe Mejia, Jr., 859 F.3d 475

Mejia pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) but did not admit facts about a preceding bar fight.
Conflicting accounts from witnesses and police left it unclear who fired shots during the fight; shots struck a building and a vehicle.
Mejia denied being the shooter, led police to the recovered gun, and refused to discuss the incident with probation.
The probation officer recommended a 4-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for use/possession of a firearm in connection with another felony; the judge declined to apply that enhancement.
Without the enhancement, the guideline range was 51–63 months (offense level 17, CHC VI); the district court imposed a 93-month above-guideline sentence.
The district court found Mejia pulled a knife, summoned a gang member who brought a gun, reengaged in the confrontation, committed an aggravated assault, and had a lengthy violent criminal history supporting a variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court violated due process by relying on speculation or unfounded facts at sentencing	Mejia: judge speculated about facts (‘‘did not really know what happened’’) and relied on insufficient/inaccurate information	Government: court relied only on established facts (knife, summoning McClain, possession of the gun) and did not base sentence on mere speculation	Court held no due process violation: judge disclaimed uncertain facts and relied on proven conduct when explaining variance
Whether above-Guidelines sentence was adequately justified under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)	Mejia: guideline range was adequate; upward variance unjustified given lack of proof who fired shots	Government/Judge: guidelines understated seriousness and risk of recidivism given aggravated assault, gang involvement, escalation, and long criminal history	Court held the district court provided a thorough § 3553(a) explanation and justified the above-guideline sentence

Tucker v. United States, 404 U.S. 443 (due process requires sentencing on accurate information)
Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (similar due process principle)
United States v. Tankson, 836 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 2016) (due process and sentencing information)
United States v. Guajardo-Martinez, 635 F.3d 1056 (7th Cir. 2011) (sentencing on accurate information)
U.S. ex rel. Welch v. Lane, 738 F.2d 863 (7th Cir. 1984) (sentencing and accurate information)
United States v. Rice, 673 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2012) (self-defense standard under Illinois law discussed)
United States v. Ferguson, 831 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 2016) (standards for upholding variance)
United States v. Iriri, 825 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2016) (review of above-guideline sentences)
United States v. Gill, 824 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2016) (explaining § 3553(a) review)
United States v. Molton, 743 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2014) (variance explanation requirements)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (district court must provide more substantial justification for major departures)