United States v. Milton Gonzalez
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2085
8th Cir.2014Background
- Milton Gonzalez, a Mexican citizen, had prior convictions including a 2001 state conviction for possession with intent to distribute amphetamine (an aggravated felony) and a 2002 federal illegal-reentry conviction; he was removed in 2005.
- Law enforcement encountered Gonzalez in the U.S. in 2012 after a traffic stop; he admitted returning to see his girlfriend and two young children while believing he might die from cancer.
- Indicted and pleaded guilty to illegal reentry subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2).
- The district court applied a 16-level enhancement under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) because of his prior drug conviction, yielding an advisory guideline range of 46–57 months.
- The district court varied downward and imposed a 36‑month sentence (10 months below the guideline range), citing Gonzalez’s repeated immigration violations and need for deterrence; Gonzalez challenged substantive reasonableness on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 16‑level § 2L1.2 enhancement lacks empirical or policy basis such that the court abused its discretion by relying on the guidelines | Gonzalez: the enhancement is unsupported by policy/empirics and the court gave it too much weight | Government: district court may rely on advisory guidelines; no per se abuse in applying § 2L1.2 enhancements | Court: No abuse; district courts may weigh or accept guidelines; a below‑guideline sentence makes abuse unlikely |
| Whether the district court improperly discounted Gonzalez’s health and family circumstances when weighing § 3553(a) factors | Gonzalez: court gave inadequate weight to severe health issues and family ties (young children) | Government: court considered mitigating factors but appropriately emphasized deterrence and criminal history | Court: No abuse; court considered mitigating factors, granted medical attention, and provided a reasoned basis for the 36‑month sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Feemster v. United States, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing sentencing for procedural and substantive reasonableness)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (framework for appellate review of sentences and deference to district courts)
- O’Connor v. United States, 567 F.3d 395 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
- Bridges v. United States, 569 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 2009) (district courts have wide latitude in weighing § 3553(a) factors)
- Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (2009) (district courts may categorically reject Guidelines based on policy disagreement)
- Talamantes v. United States, 620 F.3d 901 (8th Cir. 2010) (application of § 2L1.2 enhancements not per se unreasonable)
- Barron v. United States, 557 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2009) (district courts not required to reject Guidelines on policy grounds)
- Moore v. United States, 581 F.3d 681 (8th Cir. 2009) (below‑guideline sentences make it unlikely a court abused discretion)