United States v. Paulino-Duarte
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4287
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Darling Paulino-Duarte is a Dominican citizen who first came to the U.S. in 1996 at age 15 with his family.
- He committed multiple drug offenses in New York and was deported in 1998 after a felony crack cocaine conviction.
- He illegally reentered the United States and had two additional New York drug convictions, then a federal conviction for illegal reentry and a 57-month sentence.
- He was deported again in 2004 and returned in 2006 to Minnesota.
- In February 2010 he was convicted of fleeing police in a high-speed chase and police found methamphetamine in his car, prompting the illegal reentry prosecution under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a)-(b)(2).
- He pled guilty to illegal reentry after removal and challenged a 77-month sentence as substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a downward variance. | Paulino-Duarte argues 3553(a) factors, especially his history, warranted downward relief. | The government contends an within-guidelines sentence is appropriate given his extensive criminal history. | No abuse; within-guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable. |
| Whether lack of a fast-track program supports a downward variance post Jimenez-Perez. | Paulino-Duarte urged remand to consider fast-track disparity. | Lack of arguing fast-track at sentencing; no plain error to discuss sua sponte. | Remand declined; lack of fast-track argument at sentencing means no plain error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Eason, 643 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 2011) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences on appeal)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc; substantively reasonable review of sentences within guidelines)
- United States v. Mejia-Perez, 635 F.3d 351 (8th Cir. 2011) (upward variance/deterrence considerations may be appropriate for serious criminal history)
- United States v. Jimenez-Perez, 659 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2011) (discussed fast-track disparity as a sentencing consideration under 3553(a))