United States v. Ricardo Garcia-Segura
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11118
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Garcia-Segura appeals a 90-month federal sentence for unauthorized presence after removal under 18 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- He argued for a 19-month, state-time credit due to government delay in charging him, to allow a concurrent federal sentence with his state sentence.
- The district court acknowledged discretion to account for the delay but imposed a within-guidelines sentence, rejecting mitigation and citing deterrence of reentry.
- Garcia-Segura’s prior removals and unrelated state crimes were considered; the district court found a longer sentence necessary to deter further violations.
- This court affirmed, noting the district court did address the principal mitigation argument and that the sentence was reasonable within the guidelines.
- The court also suggested procedures for sentencing courts to address mitigation arguments in the future.
- The opinion discusses whether time served credit could be accounted for under policy statements and the reasonableness standard under Rita and related Seventh Circuit cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court failed to address Garcia-Segura’s mitigation argument | Garcia-Segura argues district court ignored the 19-month credit. | Garcia-Segura contends district court failed to consider delay mitigating. | No; court acknowledged discretion and rejected mitigation. |
| Whether the court properly exercised discretion to forego the 19-month credit | Garcia-Segura contends concurrent state sentence warranted credit. | State crimes unrelated; deterrence justifies within-guidelines sentence. | Yes; within-guidelines sentence upheld, discretion exercised. |
| Whether the sentence is reasonable under the guidelines and case law | Sentence should reflect delay credit and be lenient. | Sentence reasonable; presumption within guidelines applies. | Reasonable; presumption of reasonableness maintained. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Villegas-Miranda, 579 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes whether district court must address mitigation argument in silence)
- United States v. Pape, 601 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2010) (no error when district implicitly rejects mitigation argument but discusses other factors)
- United States v. Diekemper, 604 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2010) (implicit rejection of mitigation admissible when other factors justify sentence)
- United States v. Poetz, 582 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2009) (same principle as Diekemper and Pape)
- United States v. Curby, 595 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2000) (addressing mitigation arguments within sentencing)
- United States v. Campbell, 617 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2010) (discretion under 5G1.2; differing context when still imprisonment)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)
- Marin-Castano v. United States, 688 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2012) (upholding reasonableness of guideline-range sentence)
- United States v. McNeil, 573 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2009) (supports reasonableness analysis within guidelines)
- United States v. Padilla, 618 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2010) (unrelated underlying crimes; consecutive sentences reasonable)
- United States v. Statham, 581 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2009) (relevant to reasonableness of sentence when unrelated offenses)