United States v. Ricardo Lenin Osorio-Moreno
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3744
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Ricardo Osorio-Moreno pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1).
- Sentencing calculation: total offense level 17 (after 3-level reduction for acceptance), criminal-history category VI, guideline range 51–63 months.
- Defendant had a long criminal record (20 convictions across juvenile and adult offenses), including violent crimes against women and assaults on police, multiple drug offenses, weapons offenses, and numerous arrests not counted in the guidelines.
- District court found the guideline range understated his criminal history and did not adequately promote respect for law, deterrence, or public safety.
- District court imposed the statutory maximum sentence of 120 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.
- Eleventh Circuit review focused on whether that upward variance was substantively reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an upward variance to statutory maximum was substantively reasonable | Osorio: variance unsupported because extraordinary circumstances required; guideline range overstated culpability due to addiction and traumatic youth | Government/District Court: sentence justified by extensive criminal history, violence, reentry after deportation, and need for deterrence/respect for law | Affirmed — no requirement of "extraordinary" circumstances; court did not abuse discretion in imposing upward variance |
| Whether district court gave improper weight to criminal history over mitigation | Osorio: court should have given greater weight to his drug addiction, childhood trauma, and post-deportation promises | Government: court properly discounted mitigation given continued criminality after deportation and many uncounted offenses/arrests | Affirmed — court reasonably weighed aggravating history more heavily and discounted mitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (appellate review of outside-Guidelines sentences; no requirement of "extraordinary" circumstances)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir.) (standard for abuse of discretion in substantive-reasonableness review)
- United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir.) (upholding statutory-maximum sentence based solely on extensive criminal history)
- United States v. Sanchez, 586 F.3d 918 (11th Cir.) (criminal history can justify upward departure and variance)
- United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir.) (district court may weigh criminal history heavily against mitigating evidence)