Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

09-3333 U.S. v. Figueroa

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 13, 2010//

09-3333 U.S. v. Figueroa

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 13, 2010//

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Procedural reasonableness

Even though a defendant received a sentence at the bottom of the applicable guideline, he is entitled to resentencing, where the district court referenced numerous irrelevant considerations.

“We understand that sentencing is an individual, and at times idiosyncratic, process. And we recognize that the district court judge may have been frustrated by Figueroa’s lack of remorse and his arguments about the unfairness of his predicament. But this does not excuse the court from its duty to ensure a fair process. At sentencing, the district court ‘must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.’ Gall, 552 U.S. at 50. We conclude that the district court fell short of this requirement. It is true that the district court made references to the § 3553(a) factors and to the arguments based on them that defense counsel raised, but the litany of inflammatory remarks undermined anything else that the court said during the hearing. Although we typically do not require an exhaustive explanation when the court chooses a sentence within the recommended guideline range, see United States v. Dean, 414 F.3d 725, 729-30 (7th Cir. 2005), the fact that Figueroa received a within-guidelines sentence does not make up for these inflammatory statements. We have no way of knowing how, if at all, these extraneous considerations influenced Figueroa’s sentence. It is no answer to say that the judge chose a guidelines sentence and thus all was well; for all we know, setting his private views to one side the court may have thought that a below-guidelines sentence was appropriate. We are unpersuaded by the government’s argument that the discussion of the Mexican drug wars was sufficiently germane to the underlying conduct to support the sentence. If these were the only extraneous comments, then we might give the district court the benefit of the doubt. They were not. We conclude that the district court’s process was so far out of bounds that Figueroa is entitled to resentencing. We emphasize, however, that we are taking no position on the substantive reasonableness of the 235-month sentence that Figueroa received.”

Affirmed in part, and Vacated in part.

09-3333 U.S. v. Figueroa

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Randa, J., Wood, J.

Full Text

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