425 F. App'x 457
6th Cir.2011Background
- Fierro pled guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(A)(viii).
- DEA investigation began in Feb. 2009 after a confidential informant reported Fierro transported narcotics to Grand Rapids, Michigan.
- Controlled drug buy with the informant led to Fierro being caught with 1,332 grams of methamphetamine in a truck’s hidden compartment.
- A subsequent search of Fierro’s residence uncovered additional methamphetamine (≈420 g), heroin (≈250 g), a sawed-off shotgun, and notebooks.
- At sentencing, Fierro sought a downward variance based on cooperation and pending deportation; the court denied variance and sentenced Fierro to 144 months, in the lower half of the Guidelines range.
- Fierro appeals claiming procedural and substantive unreasonable-ness of the sentence; the court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of sentence procedurally unreasonable | Fierro argues court failed to consider/reject cooperation and deportation | Fierro asserts district court did not adequately address cooperation and deportation | Not procedurally unreasonable; court adequately explained why variance was denied |
| Reasonableness of sentence substantively unreasonable | Fierro claims excessive weight on factors like hidden compartment, false name, prior conduct, employment | Court used factors to justify no downward variance | Not substantively unreasonable; factors explained as indicating sophistication and scope of trafficking |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alexander, 543 F.3d 819 (6th Cir. 2008) (reasonableness review framework for sentences)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc; presumptive reasonableness of within-Guidelines sentence)
- United States v. Brown, 557 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2009) (procedural/substantive reasonableness analysis in sentencing)
- United States v. Petrus, 588 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2009) (upward variance possible for deportation considerations)
- United States v. Mendez, 362 F. App’x 484 (6th Cir. 2010) (district court aware of deportation; may deny variance on that basis)
- United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2008) (weighting of factors is within discretion; not appellate- reviewable as to weight)