United States v. Guajardo-Martinez
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6790
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Guajardo-Martinez, a Mexican national, pled guilty to illegal reentry following an aggravated felony conviction and received a below-guidelines sentence of 40 months.
- Presentence Report calculated guideline range at 46–57 months, based on a 21 total offense level and III criminal history, including a 16-level drug-trafficking enhancement.
- PSR listed three DUI arrests (1999, 2000, 2009), none leading to conviction; two arrests were not supported by details in the PSR.
- District court discussed Guajardo’s broader criminal history, including a drug-trafficking conviction, in deciding the sentence and expressly acknowledged the DUI arrests in context.
- Guajardo challenged the use of arrests not resulting in convictions and the district court’s consideration of a lack of a fast-track program, arguing both issues. The court below imposed a 40-month term.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding no plain error in the use of the arrests and that the fast-track issue did not require reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arrests not leading to conviction used at sentencing | Guajardo argues the district court erred by relying on arrests not resulting in convictions. | Guajardo contends reliance on arrests without convictions was inaccurate or unreliable. | No plain error; minor, non-prejudicial impact given overall record and primary emphasis on drug-trafficking conviction. |
| Reliance on details of the third DUI arrest | Guajardo contends the district court should not rely on DUI arrest details that were not disputed. | Guajardo does not dispute the third DUI arrest facts in the PSR. | Correct to rely on uncontested underlying facts of the third DUI arrest. |
| Two DUI arrests without conviction | Guajardo asserts the court should not have considered the first two DUI arrests. | Guajardo asserts these arrests were irrelevant and not supported by reliable information. | No plain error; any error was non-prejudicial since the sentence depended primarily on the drug-trafficking conviction and overall record. |
| Fast-track disparity | Guajardo argues the lack of a fast-track program should have mitigated the sentence. | Guajardo asserts the district court relied on his record to deny fast-track relief. | Discouraged reliance on the fast-track as automatic mitigation; court could consider disparity but wasn't required to give a lighter sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hankton, 432 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2005) (information for PSR must have reliability to be used)
- United States v. Torres, 977 F.2d 321 (7th Cir. 1992) (arrest record alone insufficient; consider underlying conduct with basis)
- United States v. Aviles-Solarzano, 623 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2010) (courts may accept undisputed PSR facts as findings of fact)
- United States v. Turner, 604 F.3d 381 (7th Cir. 2010) (when relying on PSR, defendant bears burden to show inaccuracies)
- United States v. Walker, 98 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 1996) (no reasonable likelihood defendant would have received lighter sentence ignoring arrests)
- United States v. Longstreet, 567 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2009) (plain-error standard in sentencing appeals)
- United States v. Reyes-Hernandez, 624 F.3d 405 (7th Cir. 2010) (fast-track disparity may be considered, not required as mitigating factor)