United States v. Lazaro Soliz
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9087
8th Cir.2017Background
- Soliz pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A).
- Police stopped Soliz after informant tips; Soliz consented to a car search and officers found 453 grams of methamphetamine. He admitted intent to resell.
- The district court granted a limited downward departure, reducing Soliz’s criminal-history category by one, but sentenced him to 235 months’ imprisonment (the Guidelines minimum).
- Soliz moved for a further downward variance and argued the court failed to consider his history and characteristics, just punishment, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- Soliz did not object to procedural aspects of sentencing in district court; on appeal the court reviewed procedural claims for plain error and substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider § 3553(a) factors | Soliz: court did not adequately consider his history/character and need for just punishment | Government: district court specifically addressed the § 3553(a) factors raised | No procedural error; district court did consider the § 3553(a) factors |
| Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable | Soliz: sentence created unwarranted disparities compared to other judges’ sentences and cases | Government: sentencing disparities cited are disagreements about weighing § 3553(a) factors; court must balance disparities against other factors | Sentence was within Guidelines, supported by record, and not an abuse of discretion; presumptively reasonable on appeal |
| Whether comparisons to other district courts compelled a lower sentence | Soliz: district practices show shorter sentences for comparable defendants so his sentence is disparate | Government: sentencing practices of one district are not controlling; non-conspirator comparisons reflect discretionary weighing | Court rejected disparity argument; single-district practices are not a binding benchmark |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (deference to district court sentencing decisions; review for procedural and substantive reasonableness)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (district courts may consider sentencing practices in other courts but must balance disparities against other § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. en banc) (standards for procedural and substantive review of sentences)
- United States v. Barron, 557 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2009) (failure to consider § 3553(a) factors is procedural error)
- United States v. Cottrell, 853 F.3d 459 (8th Cir. 2017) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences on appeal)
- United States v. Lazenby, 439 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2006) (addressing extreme disparities among co-conspirators)
- United States v. Merrell, 842 F.3d 577 (8th Cir. 2016) (disagreement over weighing § 3553(a) factors does not establish abuse of discretion)