United States v. Juan Prado
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2933
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Prado, a Chicago Police Department officer, accepted bribes to steer towing business to certain tow truck companies.
- He pled guilty to one count of attempting to commit extortion; PSR set base offense level 21, CIs I, Guideline range 37–46 months.
- At sentencing, Prado sought a sentence to avoid unwarranted disparity with James Wodnicki, another officer believed to be similarly situated.
- The district court refused to consider Wodnicki’s sentence, asserting disparities arguments must be presented nationally; prosecutor was prevented from discussing Wodnicki’s circumstances.
- Prado was sentenced within the Guidelines to 42 months; the court stated Prado had not shown a national disparity.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held the district court erred by not recognizing discretion to consider individual sentences and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had discretion to consider disparities among similarly situated defendants. | Prado argued the court could compare with Wodnicki’s sentence. | Prado’s court believed only national disparity arguments were permissible. | District court erred by lacking awareness of discretionary consideration. |
| Whether the district court’s error was harmless. | The error affected the sentencing outcome by preventing meaningful comparison. | Disparity arguments were independent of the error and were unfounded. | Error not harmless; remand for resentencing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (Guidelines are advisory post-Booker; consider §3553(a) factors)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (Supreme Court 2007) (district court discretion to depart from Guidelines)
- Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (Supreme Court 2009) (recognizes discretion to fashion sentencing framework)
- Bartlett v. United States, 567 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2009) (district court may depart to meet ends of justice; not bound to Guidelines only)
- Hill v. United States, 645 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. 2011) (procedural error standard for § 3553(a) compliance; de novo review)
- Bennett v. United States, 708 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2013) (harmless error standard for sentencing procedure)
- Abbas v. United States, 560 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2009) (harmless-error framework in sentencing context)