United States v. Juan Rangel
697 F.3d 795
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Rangel pled guilty to mail fraud and money laundering based on a Ponzi scheme and mortgage-fraud scheme.
- The plea and plea agreement contemplated an advisory Guidelines calculation with a 180-month sentence as reasonable, but left district court discretion to sentence beyond the Guidelines.
- The district court calculated a 36 offense level, criminal history I, yielding an advisory range of 188–235 months.
- The court imposed consecutive terms of 240 months (mail fraud) and 24 months (money laundering), totaling 264 months, plus five years of supervised release and a $200 special assessment.
- Restitution was determined to be $19,922,656, but Rangel could not pay restitution; the court stated the sentence reflected the harm to victims rather than his inability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 32(h) notice required for variance under 3553(a) | Rangel argues notice was required for the variance. | Rangel contends the court should have given Rule 32(h) notice before a non-Guidelines variance. | Rule 32(h) notice not required for § 3553(a) variances. |
| Consecutive sentences and variance under § 3553(a) | Rangel challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences as improper under guidelines. | Court relied on § 3553(a) factors to justify variance and consecutiveness. | Court did not err; conclusions based on § 3553(a) variance factors. |
| Consideration of inability to pay restitution | Rangel argues court impermissibly used inability to pay as aggravating factor. | Court could consider the impact on victims and likelihood of restitution in determining sentence. | Court did not abuse discretion in considering victim impact and restitution issues. |
| Adequacy of sentencing explanation under 3553(a) | Rangel argues the court failed to address all arguments tethered to 3553(a). | Court explained consideration of 3553(a) factors and arguments, sufficient under Rita/Carty. | No plain error; explanation adequate given context. |
| Claim of bias/recusal and other challenges | Rangel asserts bias and requesting recusal; government breached plea by photos; other arguments. | Court’s sympathy for victims does not show bias; no breach established; arguments addressed. | Recusal claim rejected; no plain error; appeal affirmance. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cruz-Perez, 567 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes departure vs variance under 3553(a))
- United States v. Evans-Martinez, 611 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 2010) (Rule 32(h) notice survives Booker for departures/variances)
- Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (U.S. 2008) (variance not required to have Rule 32(h) notice)
- Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1991) (purpose of Rule 32(h) and adversary testing of Guidelines sentences)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (probation/fines restitution considerations and punishment limits)