United States v. Ramiro Reyes-Sanchez
544 F. App'x 284
5th Cir.2013Background
- Reyes-Sanchez pleaded guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States after deportation and was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.
- Reyes appeals the sentence, challenging the six-month variance above the guidelines range as inadequately reasoned.
- He contends the district court overemphasized past minor offenses and years-old informal removals, underweighting altruistic motives.
- The court reviews for plain error because Reyes did not object to the sufficiency of the stated reasons in the district court.
- The district court stated it considered 3553(a) factors and provided fact-specific reasons for the variance, indicating no undue emphasis on irrelevant factors.
- The court also addressed the fine, determining Reyes had future ability to pay and allowing some income to be applied toward the fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of variance articulation | Reyes argues the court failed to articulate adequate reasons. | Reyes contends the variance rationale was sufficiently explained. | No procedural error; reasons articulated were fact-specific and consistent with 3553(a). |
| Reasonableness of the variance | Reyes claims the variance was an abuse of discretion. | Reyes concedes the court weighed relevant factors; factual basis supported. | Variance not an abuse of discretion; sentence substantively reasonable. |
| Fine and ability to pay | PSR showed inability to pay; district court must make specific findings. | Court could rely on future ability to pay and apportioned prison wages. | District court did not abuse discretion; future ability to pay supported and wage assignment permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error review when no objection to sentencing rationale)
- Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error standard for appeal from sentencing decisions)
- Smith, 440 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2006) (district court must give fact-specific reasons for variance)
- Gall, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness standard for sentences, including variances)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (consideration of sentencing factors in reasonableness review)
- Landerman, 167 F.3d 895 (5th Cir. 1999) (requirement to make specific findings when PSR is adopted for fines)
- Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2008) (imposing fines partially based on prison wages affirmed)
- Matovsky, 935 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1991) (financial burden from fine does not automatically void it)
- Rodriguez, 15 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 1994) (future ability to pay fine can be considered)
- Puckett, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (see above)