Sentencing — reasonableness

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — reasonableness

It was not unreasonable at sentencing for a district court to deny a drug courier a minor role reduction.

“Certainly, a district court is within its authority to impose a sentence outside of that recommended by the guidelines. United States v. Corner, 598 F.3d 411, 416 (7th Cir. 2010) (‘[A] judge who understands what the Commission recommends, and takes account of the multiple criteria in § 3553(a), may disagree with the Commission’s recommendation categorically, as well as in a particular case.’). Here, there is nothing to suggest that the district court was unaware of its authority to sentence Sandoval-Velazco below the minimum sentence recommended by the guidelines. The district court’s statement on Congressional policy simply demonstrates that it considered Congress’ judgment in treating narcotics couriers similarly to narcotics distributors—had Congress meant for couriers to be sentenced less severely as a matter of course, it would have said as much. Moreover, the district court’s statement that it was ‘going to give him a guideline sentence’ signifies that it fully understood that it was within its rights to do otherwise. Thus, we find no error in the district court’s sentencing of Sandoval-Velazco.”

Affirmed.

12-3878 U.S. v. Sandoval-Velazco

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