United States v. Guadalupe Rosales-Gonzales
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16457
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Defendant Guadalupe Rosales-Gonzales pled guilty to being a removed immigrant found in the United States (8 U.S.C. § 1326) after CBP arrested him following multiple prior removals.
- Plea agreement included a joint request for a 4-level downward "fast-track" departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 and other recommendations; government waived indictment and appeal rights.
- At sentencing the district court calculated offense level 10 and criminal history category V (Guidelines range 21–27 months) but declined to grant the § 5K3.1 departure.
- The district court explained reluctance to apply fast-track given defendant’s repeated removals and prior identical convictions and concluded an "upper end" Guidelines sentence was warranted.
- Court imposed a 27-month term (the top of the calculated Guidelines range); defendant appealed only the denial of the fast-track departure and the sentence’s reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a § 5K3.1 fast-track departure is procedural error | Government: denial is reviewable only for substantive reasonableness; departures treated as discretionary | Rosales-Gonzales: district court procedurally erred by denying joint fast-track request | Denial of § 5K3.1 departure is not a procedural error; departures reviewed as part of substantive reasonableness |
| Whether § 5K3.1 departure is mandatory when requested by government/parties | Government: § 5K3.1 uses permissive language and is discretionary | Rosales-Gonzales: reliance on Gonzalez-Zotelo to argue departure must be granted when properly requested | § 5K3.1 is discretionary; district courts may decline a fast-track departure when justified |
| Whether the district court used the Guidelines as the starting point | Government: court correctly calculated offense level and range then considered departure and § 3553(a) factors | Rosales-Gonzales: court failed to follow the three-step Guidelines procedure and manipulated calculations | Court followed the three-step procedure (calculation, considered departure, applied § 3553(a)); no manipulation found |
| Whether the 27‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable (parsimony principle) | Government: sentence within Guidelines and justified by recidivism and deterrence | Rosales-Gonzales: longer-than-necessary; court over-emphasized deterrence and prior sentence comparison | Within-Guidelines 27‑month sentence was substantively reasonable after individualized § 3553(a) analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.) (two-step review: procedural error then substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979 (9th Cir.) (post-Booker departures treated as exercises of discretion)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736 (9th Cir.) (limitations on considering sentencing disparities between fast-track and non-fast-track defendants)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (Guidelines are the starting point and substantive-reasonableness review)
- United States v. Lee, 725 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir.) (district court may not manipulate Guidelines calculations to reach a preferred sentence)
- United States v. Shand, 739 F.3d 714 (2d Cir.) (§ 5K3.1’s permissive language permits district-court discretion)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (a Guidelines sentence will usually be reasonable)
- United States v. Chavez, 611 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir.) (parsimony principle guides substantive-reasonableness analysis)