United States v. Torres-Vasquez
406 F. App'x 40
7th Cir.2010Background
- Torres-Vasquez, a Mexican citizen, had been removed from the United States three times due to prior offenses including a 73-month cocaine sentence in 1999.
- He illegally reentered after each removal, with a sequence of reentries and removals culminating in September 2008 arrest in California.
- In September 2008 he was indicted in the Northern District of Illinois for illegal reentry after deportation and requested a Rule 20 transfer to the Central District of California, which was denied.
- He pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry; the case proceeded in Illinois, though the initial transfer request had been to California.
- Guidelines ranges differed by district: 46–57 months if in a fast-track California district versus 70–87 months in the Northern District of Illinois without fast-track.
- The district court sentenced Torres-Vasquez to 76 months, and the district court acknowledged the potential fast-track disparity but weighed other circumstances against leniency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly considered fast-track disparity | Torres-Vasquez argues the court should have reflecting the absence of fast-track in Illinois. | Torres-Vasquez is the plaintiff; the government argues no misstep since disparity was weighed. | No error; court acknowledged disparity and weighed circumstances; affirmed. |
| Whether the court erred by not separately considering Rule 20 transfer denial disparity | Torres-Vasquez argues the denial of Rule 20 created another disparity. | Court considered this as part of fast-track disparity and still weighed against leniency. | No error; court considered the disparity and sentenced within the bounds; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Reyes-Hernandez, 624 F.3d 405 (7th Cir. 2010) (recognizes court may consider absence of fast-track in sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Galicia-Cardenas, 443 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2006) (pre-reconsideration stance; district courts could not depart below guidelines solely for lack of fast-track)