United States v. Perez-Frias
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6616
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Perez-Frias pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction (manslaughter) stemming from 1995 in New York state court.
- He was released on parole in 2008, deported to the Dominican Republic, and illegally reentered in August 2009.
- In December 2009 he was federally charged with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(b)(2); he pled guilty on January 27, 2010.
- The government's pre-plea letter estimated a Guidelines range of 46–57 months (Offense Level 21, CHC III).
- At sentencing, the district court imposed 42 months, a below-Guidelines sentence, with four months of custody credit for time in federal custody.
- Perez-Frias appeals the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, challenging the 16-level § 2L1.2 enhancement and comparisons to fast-track districts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable under 3553(a). | Perez-Frias contends below-Guidelines is too harsh given 3553(a) factors. | Perez-Frias argues the court should depart from the Guidelines range to a non-Guidelines sentence. | Sentence affirmed as reasonable within the range of permissible decisions. |
| Whether the § 2L1.2 16-level reentry enhancement is supported by empirical data. | Perez-Frias asserts lack of empirical support invalidates the enhancement. | Congress authorized the 16-level enhancement; the district court properly considered 3553(a). | Enhancement upheld; no empirical-data flaw found. |
| Whether the 16-level enhancement is unduly harsh for a nonviolent reentry offense. | Reentry is nonviolent; the enhancement is too harsh. | Guidelines reflect Congressional policy to deter aliens with prior convictions; nonviolent offense can carry higher level. | Not reversible; district court appropriately applied the Guideline. |
| Whether fast-track district comparisons render the sentence unreasonable. | Fast-track sentences show less punishment, suggesting the district court erred. | Fast-track status does not render sentences unwarranted; defendants are not similarly situated. | Rejected; no error found in not comparing to fast-track districts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (establishes abuse-of-discretion review for substantive reasonableness and totality of circumstances)
- Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (institutional advantages of district courts; defer to trial court discretion)
- Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006) (guideline weight within broad reasonable range under 3553(a))
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (district courts may reject or differ from Guidelines based on 3553(a) considerations)
- Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (empirical reasoning critique (child-porn) versus reentry guidelines; absence of bypass by Congress here)
- Hendry, 522 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2008) (refast-tracked districts not comparable for sentencing)
- Lopez-Reyes, 589 F.3d 667 (3d Cir. 2009) (nonviolent offense does not render Guideline unreasonable when indexing punishment)
- Ramirez-Garcia, 269 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2001) (legitimize increased penalties for aliens with prior convictions)
- MacEwan, 445 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006) (Congress's power to define crime and punishment)
- Pope, 554 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 2009) (deference to sentencing judge; no second-guessing of weight given to factors)