United States v. Lua-Guizar
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17824
7th Cir.2011Background
- Lua-Guizar pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal and faced an advisory range of 46–57 months.
- He argued for a downward adjustment based on cultural assimilation under a then-pending amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n. 8 and to avoid unwarranted disparity from lack of a fast-track program.
- The district court denied both requests, instead sentencing at the bottom of the guidelines range (46 months).
- Lua-Guizar has a long history including prior cocaine offenses, probation on driving offenses, and removals/reentries to the United States.
- The district court found him to be at risk of recidivism and rejected arguments tied to the pending amendment and fast-track disparities.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding there was no procedural error in the district court’s reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by not applying a cultural assimilation adjustment. | Lua-Guizar contends the amendment justified a lower offense level. | Lua-Guizar argues the district court should account for assimilation, per the pending amendment. | No error; the court properly treated the amendment as pending and validly declined the adjustment. |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by declining to consider fast-track disparity. | Lua-Guizar asserts lack of fast-track programs creates an unwarranted disparity requiring relief. | Lua-Guizar argues court should reduce sentence given absence of fast-track in the district. | No error; court acknowledged discretion but found the existing guidelines adequately fit the offense and history. |
Key Cases Cited
- Galicia-Cardenas v. United States, 443 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2006) (addressed appellate limits on fast-track disparity in sentencing)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (policy-driven discretion in applying Guidelines)
- Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (U.S. 2009) (district judges may reject Guidelines on policy grounds)
- Corner v. United States, 598 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc: judges may depart on policy grounds when reasonable)
- Reyes-Hernandez v. United States, 624 F.3d 405 (7th Cir. 2010) (geography-based fast-track disparities are discretionary and not per se unwarranted)
- Sandoval Ramirez v. United States, 652 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2011) (clarified when a district may consider fast-track disparity)
- Guajardo-Martinez v. United States, 635 F.3d 1056 (7th Cir. 2011) (affirmed district discretion but emphasized prudent consideration of disparities)