715 F.3d 451
2d Cir.2013Background
- Rodriguez appealed a conviction and 57-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation following an aggravated felony.
- Sentence runs consecutively to an undischarged Virginia narcotics sentence that Rodriguez was serving.
- District court considered Rodriguez’s history, characteristics, and deterrence in setting the sentence under § 5G1.3(c).
- Rodriguez argued the lack of concurrent or partially concurrent sentencing rendered the term substantively unreasonable.
- The panel affirmed the sentence as within the district court’s discretion and consistent with § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a fully consecutive sentence under § 5G1.3(c) is reasonable | Rodriguez | Rodriguez | Consecutive sentence within discretion; reasonable |
| Whether district court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors in § 5G1.3(c) analysis | Rodriguez | Rodriguez | District court acted within discretion |
| Whether vacation of concurrent/partial concurrency was error | Rodriguez | Rodriguez | No error; justified under guidelines and discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. United States, 604 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2010) (deferential abuse-of-discretion review for sentences)
- Cavera v. United States, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc; two-component procedural and substantive review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonable-abstand standard for appellate review of sentences)
- United States v. Maria, 186 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 1999) (discretion in § 5G1.3(c) to consider concurrent/consecutive options)
- United States v. McCormick, 58 F.3d 874 (2d Cir. 1995) (consecutive sentence should be reasonable incremental penalty)
- United States v. Matera, 489 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for § 5G1.3(c) determinations)
- United States v. Perez-Frias, 636 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2011) (Guidelines sentence range generally within reasonable bounds)