09-3992 U.S. v. Aviles-Solarzano

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Illegal reentry; prior conviction; crime of violence

Where the parties stipulated that a prior conviction was a crime of violence at sentencing, no further proof is required.

“There is no reason to go digging for a state-court indictment if the parties agree on what it says. The judge was entitled to assume that the parties agreed that the summary of the indictment was accurate. ‘At sentencing, the court may accept any undisputed portion of the presentence report as a finding of fact.’ Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(A); see also United States v. Kelly, 519 F.3d 355, 366 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Thornton, 463 F.3d 693, 700-01 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Lopez-Garcia, 565 F.3d 1306, 1323 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Jimenez, 512 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2007). She didn’t have to insist that they produce the indictment. ‘[I]f a defendant offers an admission in court papers or colloquy, as [the defendant] does here in his plea agreement and during sentencing, the proper enquiry into the previous conviction no longer matters because the answer is in the form of an admission in the record.’ United States v. Kindle, 453 F.3d 438, 442 (7th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Billups, 536 F.3d 574, 583-84 (7th Cir. 2008). The judge could reasonably assume that the defendant’s lawyer was satisfied that the summary was accurate. United States v. Kelly, supra, 519 F.3d at 366; United States v. Turbides- Leonardo, supra, 468 F.3d at 39.”
Affirmed.

09-3992 U.S. v. Aviles-Solarzano

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, St. Eve, J., Posner, J.

Full Text