United States v. Sicairos
678 F. App'x 774
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2014 authorities arrested Sicairos after he transported over 17 pounds of methamphetamine; he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500+ grams of methamphetamine in violation of federal law.
- Presentence report noted a prior Arizona solicitation-for-sale drug conviction and illegal reentry into the United States.
- The district court initially imposed a 188-month sentence; this court remanded for resentencing because of a procedural error.
- On remand the court denied Sicairos’s motion for a downward variance to match co-defendants and imposed 151 months (a below-Guidelines sentence reflecting a two-level variance tied to an earlier plea expectation).
- Sicairos appealed, arguing his sentence was substantively unreasonable because of sentencing disparities with co-defendants and with similar offenders nationally, and that the district court failed adequately to explain the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sicairos’s 151-month sentence was substantively unreasonable due to disparity with co-defendants | Sicairos: his sentence is disparate compared to co-conspirators and therefore substantively unreasonable | Government: disparities explained by co-defendants’ cooperation and differing criminal histories; district court acted within discretion | Affirmed — disparity alone is not abuse; differences explained by cooperation and criminal-history differences |
| Whether sentence was disparate compared to nationwide similar offenders | Sicairos: his sentence is excessive compared to similar offenders elsewhere | Government: a within- or below-Guidelines sentence complies with §3553(a)(6); isolated comparisons are unhelpful | Affirmed — a Guidelines-range (and below-range) sentence satisfies §3553(a)(6); selective comparisons unreliable |
| Whether the district court failed to adequately explain the sentence | Sicairos: court did not sufficiently state reasons on the record for the sentence | Government: court noted variance, prior felony, co-defendants’ sentences, and other §3553(a) factors; no magic-words required | Affirmed — explanation was sufficient; court need not recite every §3553(a) factor verbatim |
| Standard of review and whether district court abused discretion | Sicairos: court failed to strike proper §3553(a) balance | Government: sentencing reviewed for abuse of discretion; deference appropriate | Affirmed — district court did not abuse its discretion under Gall standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (discretionary review of sentences; reasonableness standard)
- United States v. Sells, 541 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2008) (appellate deference to district court’s §3553(a) balancing)
- United States v. Allen, 24 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 1994) (co-defendant disparity alone not abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Martinez, 610 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2010) (§3553(a) does not require co-defendant disparity consideration)
- United States v. Davis, 437 F.3d 989 (10th Cir. 2006) (disparate sentences permissible when explained by record facts)
- United States v. Soto, 660 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2011) (co-defendant cooperation can explain lower sentences)
- United States v. Franklin, 785 F.3d 1365 (10th Cir. 2015) (a Guidelines-range sentence satisfies §3553(a)(6))
- United States v. Sanchez-Juarez, 446 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2006) (district court must state reasons but need not recite each §3553(a) factor or use magic words)