United States v. Ramirez
652 F.3d 751
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Mandujano-Gonzalez, Ramirez, and Ocampo-Pineda, Mexican nationals, illegally in the U.S. each sentenced after §1326(a) reentry; Mandujano had a prior felony violence conviction (beating girlfriend’s 13‑month‑old son) and received a 16‑level §2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement; Ramirez had aggravated kidnapping conviction and also received the 16‑level enhancement; Ocampo had a prior aggravated criminal sexual abuse conviction and the 16‑level enhancement applied; district courts rejected fast‑track disparity arguments based on absence of fast-track programs; defendants argued sentences should be reduced to reflect fast-track disparities; Reyes-Hernandez later held courts may consider fast-track disparities but only after establishing eligibility and intent to pursue fast-track; Ocampo argued for a four‑level reduction; all three challenged the district court’s handling of fast-track considerations and the applicability of the 16‑level enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What showing must a defendant make to trigger fast-track disparity review? | Mandujano and Ramirez: showed disparity due to absence of fast-track. | Mandujano and Ramirez: eligibility not shown; Ocampo: argued parity with fast-track. | Preconditions required; disparity review not triggered without eligibility and effort to pursue fast-track. |
| Must a district court address fast-track disparity ex officio? | Gov't urged court to engage if any basis appeared. | Defendants claimed entitlement regardless of explicit eligibility. | Court may address only after defendant proves eligibility and intent to pursue fast-track. |
| What must Ocampo show to demonstrate similarity to fast-track defendants? | Gov't: require unconditional, district-specific eligibility proof. | Ocampo: waiver at plea and first-opportunity guilty plea suffice. | Waiver must be timely and eligibility shown in at least one fast-track district with full district-by-district analysis. |
| Is Waiver alone sufficient to establish fast-track parity? | Gov't: no, waiver cannot bind post hoc outcomes; must prove eligibility. | Ocampo: attached waiver shows intent for parity. | Waiver alone insufficient; must have concrete, district-specific eligibility and calculations. |
| What information must accompany a fast-track disparity claim? | Gov't: broad policy/facts arguments suffice. | Ocampo: provided speculative generalities. | Court requires thorough district-by-district estimates of likely ranges and number of programs for which not eligible. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reyes-Hernandez, 624 F.3d 405 (7th Cir. 2010) (limits fast-track relief to those actually eligible and who would pursue it)
- United States v. Olmeda-Garcia, 613 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2010) (requires foundation showing eligibility to claim fast-track disparity)
- United States v. Angiano, 602 F.3d 828 (7th Cir.) (enumerated crimes are crimes of violence for 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii))
- United States v. Vasquez-Abarca, 334 F.3d 587 (7th Cir. 2003) (confirms enumerated offenses are always crimes of violence for this guideline)
- United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 442 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2006) (reiterates fast-track considerations in sentencing)
- United States v. Galicia-Cardenas, 443 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2006) (precedent on fast-track considerations in absence of Reyes-Hernandez)