United States v. Trapp Diaz
694 F. App'x 47
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant John Matthew Trapp Diaz pleaded guilty to being found in the U.S. after deportation for an aggravated-felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2).
- Presentence Report (PSR) calculated a Guidelines range of 18–24 months under the then-applicable 2015 U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2.
- A proposed 2016 amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 (effective Nov. 1, 2016) was submitted before sentencing and would have lowered the range to 10–16 months; the district court declined to consider it because it was not yet effective.
- The district court imposed a 36-month sentence (above the PSR range), relying on defendant’s extensive criminal history, repeated reentries/deportations, and domestic-violence history.
- Trapp Diaz appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally unreasonable (court misstated the applicable Guidelines range under the proposed amendment) and substantively unreasonable (upward variance was unwarranted given older/misdemeanor prior convictions).
- The Second Circuit affirmed, rejecting both procedural and substantive unreasonableness challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural error in Guidelines calculation | Govt: District court properly used current Guidelines and did not rely on proposal | Trapp Diaz: Court misstated that 2015 and proposed 2016 ranges would be "probably" the same and thus erred | No reversible procedural error; court expressly declined to consider proposal and any mistaken remark was harmless |
| Consideration of proposed (not-yet-effective) 2016 amendment | Govt: Not appropriate to base sentence on non-effective amendment | Trapp Diaz: Court should have applied or given weight to the forthcoming amendment lowering range | Court permissibly refused to consider the amendment; defendant did not object at sentencing; no plain error |
| Substantive reasonableness of 36-month sentence | Govt: Sentence warranted by defendant’s criminal history and recidivism | Trapp Diaz: Upward variance unjustified because many priors were misdemeanors and old | Sentence was within permissible range of district court’s discretion and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether upward variance sua sponte is improper | Govt: District court may vary above guidelines based on § 3553(a) factors | Trapp Diaz: Variance improper because not recommended by probation or government | Court held sua sponte upward variance is not per se unreasonable; affirmed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing sentences)
- United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015) (procedural-reasonableness principles for sentencing)
- United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (plain-error review where defendant failed to object at sentencing)
- United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (substantive-reasonableness review standard)
- United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2009) (harmlessness of procedural sentencing errors when court states it would have imposed same sentence)
- United States v. Adams, [citation="378 F. App'x 55"] (2d Cir. 2010) (district court may impose a sentence longer than probation or government recommendation)