United States v. Jaime Orozco-Sanchez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3443
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Jaime Orozco-Sanchez pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 500+ grams of a substance containing cocaine and was sentenced to 75 months imprisonment and four years supervised release.
- The district court ordered the 75-month drug sentence to run consecutively to a previously imposed 41-month sentence for illegal reentry.
- At the drug sentencing hearing the court orally pronounced supervised-release conditions but did not orally state 13 standard conditions and a ban on possessing "destructive device"/"any other dangerous weapon;" those conditions appeared only in the written judgment.
- Orozco-Sanchez appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to follow § 3584/§ 3553(a) when deciding consecutive v. concurrent service, (2) the court used the 2013 rather than 2014 Sentencing Guidelines and therefore should have treated the reentry conviction as "relevant conduct" requiring concurrency, and (3) the court erred by imposing written supervised-release conditions that were not orally pronounced.
- The Seventh Circuit held that the unpronounced written supervised‑release conditions are invalid and vacated them, requiring a resentencing; but it rejected Orozco‑Sanchez’s challenges to the consecutive sentence determination and the relevant-conduct argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unpronounced supervised-release conditions included in the written judgment are valid | Orozco‑Sanchez: written conditions are part of judgment and binding | Government: oral pronouncement controls; written order may clarify | Held: Oral pronouncement controls; written-only conditions are null and vacated; case remanded for resentencing |
| Whether § 3584(b) required a separate, detailed § 3553(a) analysis when ordering sentence consecutive to an existing sentence | Orozco‑Sanchez: court had to separately and thoroughly consider § 3553(a) before ordering consecutive service | Government: one adequate § 3553(a) explanation suffices; defendant waived further elaboration | Held: No separate full reanalysis required; a single reasoned § 3553(a) explanation is sufficient; waiver procedure under Garcia‑Segura applies |
| Whether previous illegal reentry is "relevant conduct" under § 1B1.3 (triggering § 5G1.3(b) concurrent requirement) | Orozco‑Sanchez: reentry is prerequisite to drug offense and thus relevant conduct; 2014 Guidelines simplify test, so concurrency required | Government: offenses are distinct and too attenuated to be relevant conduct; Guidelines are advisory so concurrency not mandated | Held: Illegal reentry is not § 1B1.3 relevant conduct to the drug offense; concurrency not mandated (even if it were relevant, Guidelines advisory) |
| Whether use of 2013 rather than 2014 Guidelines compelled reversal | Orozco‑Sanchez: 2014 amendments lowered threshold for concurrency and court applied an older, stricter test | Government: outcome unchanged because factual overlap lacking | Held: Use of 2013 v. 2014 Guidelines did not change result; no relevant-conduct overlap present |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sanford, 806 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2015) (only punishments stated orally in open court are valid)
- United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (supervised-release conditions are part of the sentence)
- United States v. Garcia, 804 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2015) (oral pronouncement controls over conflicting written judgment)
- United States v. Johnson, 765 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2014) (conflicting written conditions that add to unambiguous oral judgment are null; remand required)
- United States v. Garcia‑Segura, 717 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2013) (procedure to secure waiver of Cunningham mitigation claims by asking defense counsel at sentencing)
- United States v. Nania, 724 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2013) (relevant-conduct requires factual overlap between offenses)
- United States v. Moore, 784 F.3d 398 (7th Cir. 2015) (Guidelines are advisory; district court not bound to impose concurrent sentence even if § 5G1.3 applies)
- United States v. Conley, 777 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2015) (prerequisite relationship between offenses does not alone make earlier offense relevant conduct)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court must give reasoned consideration of § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Sentencing Guidelines advisory)