Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

05-2788 U.S. v. Rivera

By: dmc-admin//September 11, 2006//

05-2788 U.S. v. Rivera

By: dmc-admin//September 11, 2006//

Listen to this article

“Rivera next argues that the length of his sentence reduces the incentive for future escapees to return without incident, and that this is implicitly contrary to § 3553(a)(2)(B). But this subsection speaks on the first order of deterrence: ‘to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.’ Generally, the threat of a penal sentence is intended to discourage the commission of the crime, i.e., Rivera’s escape, in the first place. Once Rivera walked out of the halfway house without permission, that crime was already committed, and as the district court noted, it threatened the halfway house system and other alternative means of punishment. To view the court’s sentence as punishment for returning is to ignore the fact that Rivera chose to commit the crime. It is not the court or the penal system that has placed him in this predicament, it is the exercise of his own free will. Further, the district court did reward Rivera for returning voluntarily by sentencing him at the bottom of the Guidelines range.

“Finally, Rivera argues that his sentence is unreasonable because it is the same or greater than sentences meted out to other defendants in our Circuit who escaped prison under conditions he characterizes as more egregious than his. Of the three cases Rivera cites as anecdotal evidence, however, two did not involve the application of the career offender statute and are thus inapposite in terms of the explicit policy considerations set forth by Congress. See United States v. King, 338 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2003); United States v. Stalbaum, 63 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 1995). In the third case, United States v. Waagner, the appellant did not challenge the length of his term, but the district court’s findings of relevant conduct, instead. See 319 F.3d 962, 966 (7th Cir. 2003) (upholding finding that defendant possessed firearms ‘in connection with’ crimes of violence). These cases provide a poor foundation upon which to build a challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Gettleman, J., Bauer, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests