United States v. San-Miguel
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2800
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- San-Miguel pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute multiple drugs, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and unlawful firearm possession by an illegal alien.
- Investigators used wiretaps and informants; a year-long drug-distribution conspiracy involved eleven coconspirators in Kansas City, Missouri.
- A locked safe in San-Miguel's basement contained an unloaded revolver, matching ammunition, and 297.5 grams of cocaine; marijuana and methamphetamine were found elsewhere in the home.
- Advisory guidelines calculated a base offense level of 34, plus two-level weapon and leadership enhancements, minus three-level acceptance of responsibility.
- Total offense level 35, criminal history I, yielding a guidelines range of 168–210 months; district court sentenced at the bottom: 168 months.
- Dissent argues the sentence would be more appropriate under 3553(a) and absent the guidelines/minimum, given deportation and mitigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether weapon enhancement applied properly | San-Miguel contends weapon is not clearly linked to offense. | State law-enforcement evidence tied revolver to drug activity; location supports connection. | Not clearly improbable; enhancement affirmed. |
| Whether district court adequately explained sentence | Failure to address each 3553(a) factor; missing parsimony discussion. | Court provided sufficient reasoning; factors discussed were adequate. | No plain error; explanation sufficient. |
| Substantive reasonableness of within-range sentence | Sentence is too harsh and overly focuses on other courts' imputations. | Within-range sentences presumptively reasonable; court did not abuse discretion. | Not substantively unreasonable; affirmed. |
| Impact of 3553(a)(6) considerations | Court improperly weighed disparities; should defer to personal factors. | Court correctly weighed factors; allowed to reference others' sentencing practices. | No clear error of judgment; proper discretion exercised. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Anderson, 618 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2010) (weapon connection to drug offense need not be observed directly)
- United States v. Fladten, 230 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir. 2000) (government need not show defendant used a weapon)
- United States v. Brewer, 624 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2010) (weapon enhancement upheld where weapon found with drugs)
- United States v. Minnis, 489 F.3d 325 (8th Cir. 2007) (affirmed enhancement when weapon found with drugs and paraphernalia)
- United States v. Canania, 532 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2008) (unloaded firearm still supports enhancement)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences; standard of review)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (explains need for court to justify sentence beyond mere guideline application)
- United States v. Barker, 556 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of guideline calculations with factual findings under clear error)