United States v. Jose Ruiz-Salazar
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8092
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Ruiz-Salazar, previously convicted in Missouri of drug offenses, was deported to Mexico and later reentered the U.S. illegally.
- He was charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) for illegal reentry following a deportation and an aggravated-felony conviction and pleaded guilty.
- The Sentencing Guidelines range was 70–87 months; the district court sentenced him to 70 months (the bottom of the range).
- Defense requested a downward variance to 36 months based on family support, hardship of restarting life in Mexico, and lack of access to a Fast-Track program.
- The court considered § 3553(a) factors, emphasized Ruiz-Salazar’s lengthy criminal and drug-related history, and declined the downward variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence was procedurally reasonable | District court failed to consider required § 3553(a) factors and did not address positive personal factors | Court expressly stated it considered all § 3553(a) factors and the record shows consideration of offense and defendant history | No procedural error; court adequately considered relevant factors |
| Whether district court had to acknowledge Fast-Track access | Fast-Track exclusion warranted downward variance | Court not required to sua sponte consider Fast-Track eligibility as a basis for variance | No requirement to sua sponte address Fast-Track; not reversible error |
| Whether sentence was substantively reasonable | Court misweighed mitigating factors and should have given them greater weight | District court has broad discretion to weigh § 3553(a) factors and may assign greater weight to deterrence/public protection | Within-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable; sentence was substantively reasonable |
| Standard of review for unpreserved procedural challenge | (raised on appeal) | Plain-error review applies to arguments raised first on appeal | Plain-error standard; appellant failed to show plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Battle, 774 F.3d 504 (8th Cir.) (sets deferential abuse-of-discretion review for sentences)
- United States v. Maid, 772 F.3d 1118 (8th Cir.) (explains when a district court abuses discretion in sentencing)
- United States v. Robison, 759 F.3d 947 (8th Cir.) (same)
- United States v. Nissen, 666 F.3d 486 (8th Cir.) (no requirement to recite every § 3553(a) factor)
- United States v. Mees, 640 F.3d 849 (8th Cir.) (same principle)
- United States v. Blackmon, 662 F.3d 981 (8th Cir.) (district courts need not give ‘‘robotic incantations’’ of each factor)
- United States v. Lamoreaux, 422 F.3d 750 (8th Cir.) (same)
- United States v. Longarica, 699 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir.) (Fast-Track eligibility arguments do not require sua sponte consideration)
- United States v. Straw, 616 F.3d 737 (8th Cir.) (district court not required to address every defense argument on the record)
- United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374 (8th Cir.) (district court has wide latitude in weighing § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir.) (rarely reverse within-, above-, or below-Guidelines sentences as substantively unreasonable)
- United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir.) (noting appellate hesitance to reverse substantive reasonableness)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court) (district courts have broad discretion in sentencing and review is deferential)
- United States v. San-Miguel, 634 F.3d 471 (8th Cir.) (plain-error review for issues raised first on appeal)
- United States v. Jimenez-Perez, 659 F.3d 704 (8th Cir.) (describing Fast-Track program and § 5K3.1 reduction)