United States v. Valdovinos-Diaz
697 F. App'x 81
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Alejandro Valdovinos-Diaz pled guilty to using interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958.
- At sentencing the district court calculated a Guidelines range of 151–188 months but limited it to the 120-month statutory maximum, so the effective Guidelines range was 120 months.
- The district court sentenced Valdovinos-Diaz to 96 months’ imprisonment, after considering mitigation including his claimed fear of the intended victim, lack of criminal history, and family/work ties.
- The government did not object to the district court’s preliminary Guidelines calculation at sentencing.
- Valdovinos-Diaz appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | Government: sentence procedurally proper | Valdovinos-Diaz: court failed adequately to consider mitigating factors and explain sentence | Court: No procedural error; court considered § 3553(a) factors and explained its choice |
| Substantive reasonableness / length of sentence | Government: 96 months within permissible range considering seriousness and deterrence | Valdovinos-Diaz: 96 months is substantively unreasonable given mitigation and Guidelines cap | Court: 96 months not outside permissible range; not shockingly high or unsupportable |
| Consideration of victim’s alleged wrongful conduct | Government: mitigating weight properly limited | Valdovinos-Diaz: victim’s conduct should have led to greater mitigation | Court: Court treated the claimed fear as a mitigating factor but reasonably limited its weight |
| Guidelines calculation and statutory maximum effect | Government: Guidelines properly calculated and statutory cap applied | Valdovinos-Diaz: (implicit) sentencing should reflect mitigating circumstances despite Guidelines/statutory cap | Court: District court acknowledged Guidelines, applied statutory max, and lawfully exercised discretion in imposing below-max sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (standard for reasonableness review)
- United States v. Sindima, 488 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2007) (reasonableness review principles)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (procedural error definitions and explanation requirement)
- United States v. Park, 758 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2014) (definition of permissible sentence range for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Douglas, 713 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013) (when a sentence is substantively unreasonable)
- United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (administration of justice test for substantive unreasonableness)