10-CR-31 U.S. v. Vang

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Drug trafficking

Where the defendant did not know the amount of controlled substances involved in the one transaction he participated in, and did not profit from the transaction, a community sentence is appropriate.

“The guidelines recommended 70-87 months, but that was based on defendant’s high drug weight, which substantially inflated his range and overstated the seriousness of his offense. Even with the reductions under U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(a)(5) & 3B1.2, the range was greater than necessary to provide just punishment for defendant’s specific conduct. The parties agreed that defendant’s role was minor and related primarily to a single ecstasy shipment. The record indicated that he did not know how much ecstasy was involved in that shipment, and he did not profit from his association with Chieng Vang. Under these circumstances, the guidelines’ weight-driven formula provided limited help in selecting an appropriate, individualized sentence under § 3553(a). See, e.g., United States v. Cocoa-Vega, No. 07-CR-323, 2009 WL 1459560, at *3 (E.D. Wis. May 26, 2009); United States v. Thomas, 595 F. Supp. 2d 949, 952 n.1 (E.D. Wis. 2009); United States v. Cabrera, 567 F. Supp. 2d 271, 276-77 (D. Mass. 2008); United States v. Fathalla, No. 07-CR-87, 2008 WL 4501057, at *4 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 29, 2008); see also Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 96 (2007)(noting that the drug trafficking guideline was based on the statute’s weight-driven scheme rather than empirical data or study).”

“Given the nature of defendant’s specific conduct, I found that a sentence served in the community, with a substantial period of community confinement, sufficed to provide just punishment. Given defendant’s limited prior record, compliance with the conditions of pre-trial release, solid history of employment, and strong family support, I also saw no need for prison to protect the public and deter. A probationary sentence sufficed to ensure that defendant was monitored and maintained compliance with the law. A sentence served in the community also allowed defendant to continue supporting and caring for his son. Defendant was the child’s primary care-taker, and as his estranged wife discussed in ¶ 148 of the PSR, a period of imprisonment would cause significant stress and difficulty for her and their son.”

10-CR-31 U.S. v. Vang

E.D.Wis., Adelman, J.