Sentencing – Illegal reentry

Listen to this article

Sentencing – Illegal reentry

It was not an abuse of discretion for the sentencing court not to impose a below-guideline sentence on the ground that the government’s delay in charging him deprived him of the possibility of serving his federal prison term concurrently with an unrelated state sentence.

“Garcia-Segura challenges the reasonableness of his prison sentence, insisting that the 19-month credit was ‘consistent’ with U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 and serves the purposes of punishment. But Garcia-Segura has not identified any reason to set aside the presumption of reasonableness applicable to sentences within the guidelines range. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
347 (2007); Marin-Castano, 688 F.3d at 905. Just because the sentencing court may have been authorized to account for the 19-month delay does not mean that it acted unreasonably when refusing to do so. See Campbell, 617 F.3d at 962; United States v. McNeil, 573 F.3d 479, 484 (7th Cir. 2009). And we have recognized the reasonableness of consecutive sentences when, as here, the underlying crimes are unrelated. See United States v. Padilla, 618 F.3d 643, 647 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Statham, 581 F.3d 548, 555 (7th Cir. 2009). Garcia-Segura’s state sentence was for drug and firearm possession, convictions in no way related to his federal offense of unauthorized presence in the United States after removal.

The district court acknowledged its discretion to account for the delayed charges but concluded that 90 months’ imprisonment was necessary to deter Garcia-Segura from future violations of § 1326(a). It did not overlook Garcia-Segura’s principal argument, and the sentence was reasonable. Therefore, we affirm Garcia-Segura’s sentence.”

Affirmed.

12-2522 U.S. v. Garcia-Segura

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Zagel, J., Flaum, J.

Full Text