10-2748 U.S. v. Garcia-Oliveros

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Discretion

Where the sentencing court did not address any mitigation factors offered by the defendant, the sentence is vacated.

“We have recognized that the need for explanation typically is diminished when a sentence falls within the guidelines range, United States v. Curby, 595 F.3d 794, 797 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Harris, 567 F.3d 846, 854 (7th Cir. 2009), or when the arguments in mitigation are obviously without merit or so routine as to be ‘stock,’ United States v. Gary, 613 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Pulley, 601 F.3d 660, 667 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Tahzib, 513 F.3d 692, 695 (7th Cir. 2007). The factors offered in mitigation here—economic hardship, family circumstances, and the severity of a 16- level increase under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i)—are not unusual. See United States v. Moreno-Padilla, 602 F.3d 802, 810-14 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Aguilar-Huerta, 576 F.3d 365, 367-69 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Martinez, 520 F.3d 749, 753 (7th Cir. 2008); Tahzib, 513 F.3d at 695. Even so, the district court still was required to explain why its choice of 46 months is appropriate in light of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c); Miranda, 505 F.3d at 792; United States v. Robinson, 435 F.3d 699, 700-01 (7th Cir. 2006). The record before us is too thin to discern the considerations which motivated the district court’s sentencing decision. In light of the sentencing judge’s complete silence, we accept the government’s confession of error and remand this case for resentencing.”

Vacated and Remanded.

10-2748 U.S. v. Garcia-Oliveros

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Manning, J., Per Curiam.

Full Text