United States v. Jose Rodriguez-Trujillo
675 F. App'x 301
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jose Luis Rodriguez-Trujillo pled guilty to illegal reentry of an aggravated felon in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) and was sentenced to 37 months’ imprisonment.
- The presentence calculation included a 16-level enhancement under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based on a prior felony conviction.
- Rodriguez-Trujillo argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable, urging the court to account for his work history, family motivations (fleeing cartel violence), and that he is not a career criminal.
- He also contended the 16-level Guidelines enhancement is “draconian” and unsupported by empirical Sentencing Commission research, and that his sentence creates unwarranted disparity.
- The district court considered these arguments but emphasized the significance of the prior conviction, his reentry after deportation, and his opportunities to relocate his family instead of reentering illegally.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding Rodriguez-Trujillo failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded to a within-Guidelines sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive reasonableness of a within-Guidelines sentence | Sentence fails to account for history/character (hard-working, non‑career criminal) and cartel-related motives | District court properly weighed factors and relied on significant prior conviction and conduct after deportation | Affirmed — defendant failed to rebut presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence |
| Weight given to prior felony conviction | Prior conviction should not justify heavy enhancement | Prior conviction was significant and justified enhancement and sentence | Affirmed — district court’s discretionary weighing not an abuse |
| Challenge to USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) enhancement (16 levels) | Enhancement is “draconian” and unsupported by empirical research | Circuit has repeatedly rejected policy challenges to § 2L1.2(b) | Affirmed — policy challenge rejected based on precedent |
| Alleged unwarranted sentencing disparity | Sentence creates disparity with similarly situated defendants | Similar sentences have been affirmed for comparable prior convictions and offense conduct | Affirmed — defendant cited no authority showing unwarranted disparity |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (explaining review of substantive reasonableness and presumption for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2012) (district courts have broad discretion in weighing sentencing factors)
- United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing broad district court discretion at sentencing)
- United States v. Hernandez-Osorio, [citation="604 F. App'x 278"] (4th Cir. 2015) (rejecting similar policy challenges to USSG § 2L1.2)
- United States v. Alonso-Gonzalez, [citation="501 F. App'x 236"] (4th Cir. 2012) (affirming sentence for comparable illegal-reentry offense and prior conviction)
- United States v. Salas, [citation="372 F. App'x 355"] (4th Cir. 2010) (affirming similar sentence in illegal-reentry case)