United States v. Raymundo Martinez-Vaca
706 F. App'x 210
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Martinez-Vaca pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal and was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment, within the advisory Guidelines range.
- He sought a downward variance to account for 27 days he spent in immigration (pre-federal) custody, arguing the sentence should be adjusted so he receives credit comparable to other defendants.
- The district court denied the variance, explaining it would impose a within-Guidelines sentence after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including disparities.
- Martinez-Vaca did not obtain credit from the district court itself for the immigration custody time; credit determinations for pre-sentence custody are made by the Bureau of Prisons under the Attorney General's authority.
- He appealed, arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable and produced an unwarranted sentencing disparity under § 3553(a)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 27-month within-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because the court refused to adjust for 27 days in immigration custody | Martinez-Vaca: district court should have varied downward for 27 days in immigration custody to avoid unwarranted disparity | Government/District Court: within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable; credit for pre-federal custody is determined by BOP/AG, not the district court | Affirmed: within-Guidelines sentence not substantively unreasonable; defendant failed to overcome presumption of reasonableness |
| Whether sentencing court must give significant weight to avoiding general sentencing disparities under § 3553(a)(6) when sentence is within the Guidelines | Martinez-Vaca: denial of variance created unwarranted disparity compared to other defendants | Government: avoiding general disparities carries less weight for within-Guidelines sentences | Held: disparities argument insufficient to rebut presumption for a within-Guidelines sentence |
| Whether district court had authority to award credit for time in immigration custody prior to federal sentencing | Martinez-Vaca: requested credit adjustment via downward variance | Government: district court lacks authority to award credit; credit is collateral administrative determination by BOP under AG's authority | Held: district court cannot decide pre-sentence credit; BOP/AG determines credit (Wilson, Leal controlling) |
| Whether appellate review standard (abuse of discretion vs. plain error) affects outcome | Martinez-Vaca: preserved issue for review; argues substantive unreasonableness under abuse-of-discretion | Government: plain error because no objection; in any event, outcome same under either standard | Held: Court need not decide preservation; outcome same—no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (court reviews sentencing reasonableness under abuse-of-discretion and applies presumption for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519 (discusses preservation and review of sentencing challenges)
- United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173 (within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable)
- United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (district courts cannot award credit for time served; BOP determines credit)
- Leal v. Tombone, 341 F.3d 427 (BOP/Attorney General authority to grant pre-sentence custody credit)
- United States v. Diaz, 637 F.3d 592 (general sentencing disparities carry less weight for within-Guidelines sentences)