Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

10-2427 U.S. v. Perez-Molina

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 3, 2010//

10-2427 U.S. v. Perez-Molina

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 3, 2010//

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Illegal reentry

Where the district court justified imposing an above-guideline sentence based on factors other than those accounted for in calculating criminal history, the sentence must be affirmed.

“Although district courts may apply the departure guidelines by way of analogy in analyzing the § 3553(a) factors, they are not bound by the guidelines. See United States v. Johnson, 612 F.3d 889, 896 (7th Cir. 2010). In Castro-Juarez, we looked to § 4A1.3 at the parties’ urging, but we emphasized that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), required the court to base its sentence on an analysis of the § 3553(a) factors. 425 F.3d at 436. Just as sentencing judges may impose below-guideline sentences when they regard the guideline range as too severe, see Gall, 552 U.S. at 56; Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 111 (2007), judges may sentence above the guidelines if they consider the range too lenient. See United States v. McIntyre, 531 F.3d 481, 484 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming above-guideline sentence); United States v. King, 506 F.3d 532, 536-37 (7th Cir. 2007) (concluding challenge to above-guideline sentence would be frivolous); United States v. Spano, 476 F.3d 476, 480-81 (7th Cir. 2007) (affirming above-guideline sentence). Moreover, unlike Castro-Juarez, the district court here relied on more than criminal history to justify its above-guideline sentence. Besides noting Perez-Molina’s extensive history of illegal entry and crime, the court commented upon his personal characteristics, see § 3553(a)(1)-including his search for a better life, his family’s residing in the United States, and his ability to earn money in the United States-and the particular need to deter him from further reentry, see § 3553(a)(2)(B), since there was ‘nothing for him in Mexico.’ By considering the other circumstances drawing Perez-Molina to the United States, along with the need to deter him from reentry and crime, the district court here adequately justified its above-guideline sentence.”
Affirmed.

10-2427 U.S. v. Perez-Molina

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, McDade, J., Hamilton, J.

Full Text

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests