943 F.3d 1099
7th Cir.2019Background
- Ruben Porraz was the Inca (chapter leader) of the Latin Kings’ 89th Street Chapter and a member since age 13. As Inca he controlled drug operations, weapons storage, and ordered “hood days” and “smash on sight” enforcement.
- In a 2018 guilty plea to a single-count RICO conspiracy, Porraz admitted he was expected to fight, shoot, and kill rival gang members and that he shot at the rival Latin Dragons on five occasions.
- The PSR applied U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5 (conspiracy to commit murder), giving a base offense level of 33 and, with criminal-history category IV, a Guidelines range of 188–235 months.
- Porraz argued the base offense level should be under § 2A2.1 (assault/attempted murder) because he did not kill anyone and murder was not reasonably foreseeable; he also sought parity with codefendant Adam Flores and defendants in United States v. Zambrano.
- The district court credited Porraz’s plea admissions, found conspiracy to commit murder reasonably foreseeable from his role and activities, adopted the PSR range, and sentenced Porraz to 188 months (bottom of the Guidelines).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Porraz) | Defendant's Argument (Government / District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper Guidelines calculation: whether §2A1.5 (conspiracy to commit murder) applies | Murder was not within the scope of the conspiracy; Porraz did not kill anyone and murders were not reasonably foreseeable; §2A2.1 (assault) should apply | Porraz’s admissions (leadership role, guarding guns, directing violence, shooting at rivals) made murder reasonably foreseeable; conspiracy-level guideline applies | Court affirmed use of §2A1.5; plea admissions and role made murder foreseeable (Garcia controlling) |
| Procedural error in sentencing | Sentencing application was improper because it relied on an overbroad view of foreseeability and the PSR | District court correctly considered plea admissions and precedent; factual findings reviewed for clear error and were not erroneous | No procedural error; application of Guidelines sustained |
| Substantive reasonableness / sentencing disparity with codefendants (Flores) | Porraz requested a sentence like Flores (71 months) and like Zambrano defendants (42–84 months) | Flores cooperated, had different admissions and lesser criminal history; Zambrano focused on narcotics without admitted violence; differences justify disparity | Within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable; judge adequately explained distinctions and rejected disparity claim |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Garcia, 754 F.3d 460 (7th Cir. 2014) (upholding §2A1.5 where gang leader’s role and gang rules made murder foreseeable despite no personal homicide)
- United States v. Jimenez Recio, 537 U.S. 270 (2003) (essence of conspiracy is agreement to commit unlawful act)
- United States v. Edwards, 115 F.3d 1322 (7th Cir. 1997) (co-conspirator conduct attributable if in furtherance and reasonably foreseeable)
- United States v. Faulkner, 885 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2018) (two-step sentencing review: procedural then substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Gonzales, 765 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2014) (within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable)
- United States v. Gill, 889 F.3d 373 (7th Cir. 2018) (review of substantive reasonableness and adequacy of district court’s explanation)