United States v. Pedro Zavala-Armendariz
21-1129
| 7th Cir. | Jul 27, 2021Background
- Pedro Zavala-Armendariz, a noncitizen, pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 5+ kg of cocaine after transporting large quantities over several years and returning proceeds to a warehouse.
- The plea agreement acknowledged applicability of the statutory "safety-valve" (18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)) and a two-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a), allowing sentencing without regard to the 120-month statutory minimum.
- The PSR, reflecting the safety-valve reduction, calculated a Guidelines range of 135–168 months; probation recommended 84 months.
- At sentencing the government maintained the safety-valve but urged a within-Guidelines sentence because of the offense’s seriousness and repeated unlawful reentries; defense sought 72 months based on mitigation.
- The district court expressly found Zavala-Armendariz eligible for the safety-valve, used it to lower the offense level, rejected supervised release, and imposed 135 months (bottom of Guidelines range).
- On appeal Zavala-Armendariz argued the court procedurally erred by not adequately explaining why it declined to impose a below‑minimum sentence permitted by the safety‑valve; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Zavala‑Armendariz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court correctly applied the safety‑valve (eligibility and use in Guidelines calculation) | Safety‑valve applied; court correctly calculated Guidelines and could still impose a within‑Guidelines sentence | Court may have failed to recognize or apply that a below‑minimum sentence was available | Court properly applied safety‑valve: stated eligibility, reduced offense level, recorded that statutory minimum did not apply |
| Whether the court adequately explained why it did not impose a below‑minimum sentence even though § 3553(f) permitted one (procedural‑reasonableness) | Court considered § 3553(a) factors, addressed mitigation and aggravation, and gave sufficient reasons for a within‑Guidelines (135‑month) sentence | The explanation was insufficient; the court did not clearly justify declining a below‑minimum sentence | Court’s explanation was sufficient: it discussed mitigating factors, weighed aggravating conduct (seriousness, repeated reentries, recidivism risk), and concluded 135 months was warranted; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
None (the opinion does not cite any published judicial authorities with official reporter citations).