United States v. Rogelio Ruiz, 777 F.3d 315

In Nov. 2013 Rogelio Ruiz pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base after police found packages containing 2.66 kg cocaine and 131.77 g cocaine base in his car during a traffic stop.
PSI counted multiple prior convictions (notably a 1994 felony assault with a dangerous weapon and a 1996 felony drug conviction) and concluded Ruiz qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, producing a guidelines range of 188–235 months (offense level 31 after reductions).
Ruiz submitted briefs conceding that the prior convictions could be scored under the guidelines (citing revocation provisions) but sought a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1) and a variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) based on age of prior convictions, minimal role, and disparity with co-defendant Gilbert Albarez (who received 84 months).
At sentencing the district court acknowledged it had discretion to depart or vary but declined to do so, finding Ruiz’s criminal history showed a continuing pattern of guns, drugs, and violence; it imposed the low-end sentence of 188 months.
On appeal Ruiz argued (1) improper career-offender scoring, (2) court failed to recognize authority to depart/vary based on age of priors, and (3) substantive unreasonableness for giving undue weight to the guidelines; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ruiz was properly scored as a career offender	Gov: prior convictions qualify under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(1) and revocation rules — properly scored	Ruiz: 1994 conviction was too old and not imposed/served within 15 years, so shouldn’t count	Waived by Ruiz on appeal because he explicitly agreed in filings that the priors could be scored; court declined review on direct appeal
Whether district court misunderstood its authority to depart or vary based on age of priors	Gov: court has authority but should not depart here	Ruiz: court failed to recognize it could impose a below-guidelines sentence for old priors	No clear error; presumption court knew its discretion not rebutted — court considered and rejected departure/variance
Whether sentence was procedurally unreasonable for failing to consider relevant §3553(a) factors	Gov: court considered §3553(a) factors and the guidelines appropriately	Ruiz: court ignored minor role, disparity with Albarez, and overstated priors	Sentence procedurally proper; court considered factors and explained reasoning
Whether sentence was substantively unreasonable (excessive weight to guidelines)	Gov: within-guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable	Ruiz: guidelines were given undue weight leading to an excessive sentence	Affirmed; Ruiz failed to rebut presumption of reasonableness

Freeman v. United States, 640 F.3d 180 (6th Cir.) (standard for reviewing reasonableness of sentences)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for appellate review of sentencing decisions)
Aparco-Centeno v. United States, 280 F.3d 1084 (6th Cir.) (defendant may waive guideline challenges by conceding their applicability)
United States v. Santillana, 540 F.3d 428 (6th Cir.) (presumption that district court understands its discretion to depart)
United States v. Robertson, 260 F.3d 500 (6th Cir.) (application of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 when determining career-offender predicates)