Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Luevano-Sanchez

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

July 18, 2017


          Damon P. Martinez, United States Attorney David M. Walsh Norman Cairns Assistant United States Attorneys Attorneys for the United States

          Michael A. Keefe Federal Public Defender Attorney for the Defendant


         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Braulio Javier Luevano-Sanchez' Sentencing Memorandum, filed December 2, 2016 (Doc. 34). The Court held sentencing hearings on November 7, 2016 and January 3, 2017. The primary issue is whether a sentence of 24 months -- at the high end of the applicable guideline range -- is greater than necessary to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)'s statutory directives, when Defendant Luevano-Sanchez has been convicted four times for transporting illegal aliens, illegal reentry, and drug-trafficking; has been previously deported twice; and has returned to the United States of America after serving a sentence of 37 months in prison for illegal reentry. The Court concludes that a Guidelines sentence of 24 months is not greater than necessary to comply with § 3553(a)'s directives. Accordingly, the Court (i) denies Luevano-Sanchez' requests that he be sentenced to a term of imprisonment within the range of 12 months and 1 day to 18 months, or at or below the low-end of the Guidelines range of 18 to 24 months; and (ii) imposes a sentence at the high end of the guideline range: 24 months.


         The Court takes its facts from the Presentence Investigation Report (disclosed September 28, 2016)(Doc. 20)(“PSR”).[1] Luevano-Sanchez was born in Ojo Caliente, Zacatecas, Mexico to Maria del Pilar Sanchez-Colchal, who is deceased, and Filemon Luevano-Garcia, also deceased. See PSR ¶ 31, at 7. Luevano-Sanchez was previously married to Maria Aracely Flores, but they are now divorced. See PSR ¶ 34, at 8. His relationship with Maria produced two children, Braulio Pave Luevano Flores and Ingrid Pamela Luevano Flores, both of whom were born in the United States and reside in Santa Fe, New Mexico, with their mother. See PSR ¶ 34, at 8. He has a third child, Eduardo Luevano-Mayorga, who lives with the child's mother, Selena Josefina Mayorga, in Chicago, Illinois. See PSR ¶ 34, at 8. Luevano-Sanchez has nine siblings, all of whom he reported as residing throughout Mexico and the United States.[2] See PSR ¶ 31, at 7. Luevano-Sanchez reports nine years of formal education in Mexico. See PSR ¶ 38, at 8. His usual occupation is sous chef and construction worker. See PSR ¶ 39, at 8.

         Luevano-Sanchez “first moved to the United States in 1991, ” and has “primarily resided in Santa Fe, New Mexico.” PSR ¶ 33, at 8. Since his first entry into the United States, Luevano-Sanchez has been convicted four times, including this conviction, and arrested one additional time. See PSR ¶¶ 22-29, at 5-7. First, on November 30, 1995, United States border patrol agents arrested Luevano-Sanchez near Deming, New Mexico, for transporting illegal aliens. See PSR ¶ 22, at 5. Regarding his 1995 arrest, the PSR states that Luevano-Sanchez was driving his vehicle, heading “north on highway 180 onto highway 26, which agents knew as a notorious route for the smuggling of illegal aliens and narcotics, ” and upon stopping and searching his vehicle, the officers discovered “four individuals in the front cab and six additional individuals . . . hidden in the camper shell of the truck.” PSR ¶ 22, at 5. Upon questioning, “all ten individuals admitted to being in the United States illegally, ” and Luevano-Sanchez likewise informed the officers that he “entered the United States illegally on November 27, 1995, near Columbus, New Mexico.” PSR ¶ 22, at 5. He informed the officers, furthermore, that he “knew the individuals inside the truck were illegal aliens and were headed to Santa Fe, New Mexico.” PSR ¶ 22, at 5. On March 15, 1996, the Honorable Martha Vazquez, United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, sentenced him to 109 days of incarceration, and, subsequently, on March 27, 1996, he was deported. See PSR ¶ 22, at 5.

         Second, on March 16, 2010, Luevano-Sanchez was convicted of illegal re-entry into the United States subsequent to removal and sentenced to 37 months incarceration with a 3-year term of supervised release. See PSR ¶ 23, at 5-6. Regarding this second conviction, the PSR states that, on July 17, 2009, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents “encountered the defendant, at the Santa Fe Adult Detention Center, ” where he was “in custody for pending drug trafficking charges.” PSR ¶ 23, at 6. The drug-trafficking charges stemmed from Luevano-Sanchez' involvement in the sale of one kilogram of cocaine on June 22, 2009, which “undercover police officers, posing as cocaine dealers from Texas” had facilitated. PSR ¶ 23, at 5-6. He informed the officers after his arrest that “he was being paid $500 for assisting the sale of the cocaine.” PSR ¶ 23, at 6. Luevano-Sanchez “pled guilty to the re-entry charge and the drug charges were dismissed as part of the plea agreement.” PSR ¶ 23, at 6. On February 29, 2012, he was deported to Mexico after completing the 37-month sentence that the Honorable William P. Johnson, United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico, gave him. See PSR ¶ 23, at 6.

         Third, on March 24, 2014, the Santa Fe Police Department of Santa Fe, New Mexico arrested Luevano-Sanchez on charges of driving without a license and concealing his identity. See PSR ¶ 29, at 7. Concerning this arrest, the PSR states:

The defendant claimed he had no identification on him and provided a name. No records came up under this name. Officers noticed what appeared to be a wallet in the defendant's pocket and asked to see it. Inside the wallet, the defendant [had] a Mexican ID card with his photo and the name Roberto Luevano. The defendant was arrested under this name.

PSR ¶ 29, at 7. The PSR states that the final disposition of those charges is unknown. See PSR ¶ 29, at 7.

         Fourth, on October 27, 2015, Luevano-Sanchez, as court records indicate, [3] was arrested on one felony drug-trafficking charge. See PSR ¶ 24 at 6. Luevano-Sanchez was arrested after having “sold cocaine on multiple occasions from April 30, 2015, to October 27, 2015.” PSR ¶ 24 at 6. Consequently, on August 9, 2016, the First Judicial District Court, Court of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico sentenced him to nine years in custody with nine years suspended and five years of probation. See PSR ¶ 24 at 6.

         The PSR explains that the current offense occurred during this period of incarceration:

On November 10, 2015, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were contacted by the Santa Fe County District Attorney's office in regards to the defendant. The defendant was arrested on October 27, 2015, for state charges stemming from cocaine trafficking. ICE deportation officers initiated an investigation and determined the defendant was previously deported to Mexico on February 29, 2012, [] which was subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony for Transporting Illegal Aliens, in United States District Court, District of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, case number 2:95CR00650. A federal warrant was issued and an ICE detainer was sent to the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center.

PSR ¶ 5, at 3.


         On September 8, 2016, Plaintiff United States of America filed an Information in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico charging Luevano-Sanchez with Reentry of a Removed Alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). See Information at 1, filed September 8, 2016 (Doc. 15). The Information alleges that Luevano-Sanchez reentered the United States “while an Order of Exclusion, Deportation, and Removal was outstanding.” Information at 1. On September 8, 2016, he pled guilty, pursuant to the Fast Track Plea Agreement, see Fast Track Plea Agreement, filed September 8, 2016 (Doc. 18), to the one-count Information, before the Honorable Karen B. Molzen, Magistrate Judge for the District of New Mexico, see Plea Minute Sheet at 1, filed September 8, 2016 (Doc. 19).

         The Court will discuss the procedural background in six sections. First, it will describe the PSR's Guidelines sentencing calculations and Luevano-Sanchez' amended plea agreement. Second, the Court will discuss its handwritten revisions to the PSR. Third, the Court will discuss the amended-plea hearing, where the Court rejected the amended plea agreement. Fourth, the Court will discuss Luevano-Sanchez' guilty plea. Fifth, the Court will discuss Luevano-Sanchez' Sentencing Memorandum. See Sentencing Memorandum, filed December 2, 2016 (Doc. 34)(“Sentencing Memorandum”). Sixth, the court will discuss the sentencing hearing.

         1. The PSR and the Amended Plea Agreement.

         The United States Probation Office (“USPO”) disclosed the PSR on September 28, 2016. See PSR at 1. The PSR states that Luevano-Sanchez's base offense level is 8, and it assesses a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(2015 version), [4] because he “was previously deported following an aggravated felony conviction for Transporting Illegal Aliens.” PSR ¶ 9-11, at 4. It makes a 2-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility, and an additional 1-level reduction under U.S.S.G. §3E1.1(b) for assisting in the investigation or prosecution of the underlying offense by notifying authorities of the intention to enter a plea of guilty. See PSR ¶¶ 17-18, at 4. It reduces the total offense level of 21 by 4 additional levels for a fast-track benefit pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, resulting in a total offense level of 17. See PSR § 19, at 4. The PSR states: “The 2015 Guidelines Manual, incorporating all guideline amendments, was used to determine the defendant's offense level. USSG § 1B1.11.” PSR ¶ 9, at 4.

         Luevano-Sanchez's past convictions result in 4 criminal history points, corresponding to a criminal history category of III. See PSR ¶¶ 22-26, at 5-7. The PSR states that, based upon a total offense level of 17 and a criminal history category of III, the applicable guideline imprisonment range is 30 to 37 months. See PSR ¶ 44, at 9. Regarding the impact of the plea agreement, the PSR states that the “plea is binding pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of with the Early Disposition Program under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1.” PSR ¶ 45, at 9. It further states:

If [Luevano-Sanchez] were convicted at trial of all Counts of the Information, his statutory penalties would be unchanged. If he were convicted at trial, his offense level would have been 24. An offense level of 24 combined with a criminal history category of III results in a guideline imprisonment range of 63 months to 78 months. The defendant reduced his exposure to incarceration by entering into the plea agreement.

PSR ¶ 46, at 9. The PSR explains that, while the “Court may impose a term of supervised release of not more than three years, ” under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), the court “ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release in a case in which supervised release is not required by statute and the defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be deported after imprisonment” pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5D1(c). PSR ¶ 49, at 9. Additionally, the PSR states that Luevano-Sanchez is “eligible for not less than one nor more than five years probation because the offense is a Class C Felony, ” under 18 U.S.C. § 3561(c)(1), but, because of “the applicable guideline range is in Zone D of the Sentencing Table, the defendant is ineligible for probation, ” under U.S.S.G. § 5B1.1 n.2. PSR ¶ 51, at 10.

         In identifying factors that would warrant a departure from the advisory guideline range, the PSR explains that, “[p]ursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 and the early disposition program authorized by the Attorney General and the United States Attorney, the government agrees to move, at the time of sentencing, for a departure of four additional levels from the total offense level as calculated under the sentencing Guidelines.” PSR ¶ 60, at 10. Additionally, the PSR explains that, “after reviewing the proposed amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, it was determined the defendant would benefit from the amendment[5] when it is anticipated to go into effect on November 1, 2016.” PSR ¶ 61, at 11. The PSR explains that, by applying the relevant changes of proposed amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, and with “a four-level downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, the total offense level would be 9 which when combined with a criminal history category of III, would result in a guideline imprisonment range is 8 to 14 months.” PSR ¶ 61, at 11.

         The PSR notes that the United States would not oppose Luevano-Sanchez' withdrawal from the plea agreement to benefit from the proposed amendment to the Guidelines. See PSR ¶ 62, at 11. In the case of his withdrawal, the PSR proposes that the United States could offer him, in its sole discretion, an amended plea agreement that stipulates an appropriate sentence within the revised guideline imprisonment range of 8 to 14 months. See PSR ¶ 62, at 11. It explains that the new agreement would “take into account the defendant's acceptance of responsibility, the proposed amendment to § 2L1.2, and the four-level downward departure under § 5K3.1, with no further reduction to occur.” PSR ¶ 62, at 11. Finally, the PSR states that it has not identified any information “concerning the offense or the defendant which would warrant a variance from the advisory guideline range.” PSR ¶ 63, at 11.

         Luevano-Sanchez maintained his plea of guilty, and on October 13, 2016, he pled guilty before the Honorable Steven C. Yarbrough, Magistrate Judge for the District of New Mexico, to a new plea agreement's terms. See Plea Minute Sheet at 1, filed October 13, 2016 (Doc. 28). The Amended Plea Agreement is essentially identical to the Fast Track Plea Agreement, and the only material change is the Amended Plea Agreement's adoption of the proposed amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2.[6] See Amended Plea Agreement, filed October 13, 2016 (Doc 27)(“Amended Plea Agreement”). The Amended Plea Agreement stipulates a guidelines sentence corresponding to a criminal history category of III and total offense level of 9, which “takes into account the defendant's acceptance of responsibility, the proposed November 1, 2016, amendments to USSG § 2L1.2, and the applicable downward departure pursuant to § 5K3.1.” Amended Plea Agreement at 4. It further stipulates that Luevano-Sanchez will not seek “any further reduction, departure, deviation, or variance through motion or by argument at sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), or otherwise.” Amended Plea Agreement at 5. On October 27, 2016, Luevano-Sanchez filed a motion to continue the sentencing hearing, which the United States did not oppose. See Unopposed Motion to Continue Sentencing Hearing (filed October 28, 2016)(Doc. 30)(“Motion to Continue”). Luevano-Sanchez presumably sought to take advantage of the decreased total offense level benefit of the proposed amendment to § 2L1.2. See Motion to Continue at 1. The Court granted an order continuing the sentencing hearing, rescheduling the hearing on November 7, 2016, six days after the amendment went into effect. See Order Continuing Sentencing Hearing, filed November 2, 2016 (Doc. 30).

         2. The Court's Revisions to the PSR.

         On October 27, 2016, the Court revised the PSR, making three discrete, handwritten changes to the PSR's offense level calculations. See PSR ¶¶ 11-19, at 4. First, the Court reduced the 16-level enhancement under the Specific Offense Characteristics to an 8-level enhancement in accordance with the proposed amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, and in anticipation of its promulgation on November 1, 2016. See PSR ¶ 11, at 4. The Court determined that an 8-level enhancement is appropriate under amended § 2L1.2(b), which increases Luevano-Sanchez' offense level by 4-levels, because of his prior illegal entry offense, and an additional 4 levels, because of his 2015 drug-trafficking conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) and (3)(D).[7] Second, it changed the Adjusted Offense Level accordingly, from 24 to 16, to reflect the adjustment to the Specific Offense Characteristic. See PSR ¶ 15, at 4. Third, the Court changed the total offense level from 17 to 13. See PSR ¶ 19, at 4. The change to the total offense level factors in the revised enhancement level under Specific Offense Characteristics, the original reduction of 2 levels under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), and the original reduction of 1 level under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), but it omits the additional 4-level fast-track reduction under § 5K3.1 included in the PSR's original calculation of the total offense level.[8] See PSR ¶ 19, at 4.

         3. The Amended Plea Agreement Hearing and the Court's Rejection of the Amended Plea Agreement.

         The Court then held a hearing on November 7, 2016. See Transcript of Hearing (taken November 7, 2016)(“2016 Tr.”).[9] Luevano-Sanchez first confirmed with the Court that he had no objections to the PSR's factual allegations. See 2016 Tr. at 2:7-11 (Court, Keefe). The Court and the parties then addressed the revisions made to the PSR and the recommended sentence set forth in the Amended Plea Agreement. See 2016 Tr. at 2:3-5:18 (Court, Keefe, Probation Officer, Walsh). In the Amended Plea Agreement, the United States agreed to a total offense level of 9 and criminal history category calculation of III, resulting in a recommended guideline imprisonment range of 8 to 14 months. See 2016 Tr. at 3:14-4:6 (Court, Keefe, Probation Officer); Amended Plea Agreement at 4. The Court, however, observed that the Amended Plea Agreement retained the additional 4-level fast-track downward departure that the Court rejected when it revised the PSR. See 2016 Tr. at 4:23-5:5 (Court, Keefe); Amended Plea Agreement at 4. The Court observed that, without the 4-level fast-track downward departure that it had previously rejected, the advisory guideline range is 18 to 24 months, based on a total offense level of 13 and criminal history category of III. See 2016 Tr. at 5:23-5:5 (Court, Keefe). The Court and the parties had the following exchange:

THE COURT: And the 4 additional is what you mean by the variance that the . . .
MR. KEEFE: That the fast track would have afforded.
THE COURT: But now you have a Rule 11c[(1)(C)] at [9]. So a 13 and a [III] would be 18 to 24 would be the current range?
[MR. KEEFE]: [O]nly with acceptance, I guess yes, Your Honor, correct.
THE COURT: All right. [United States Probation Officer] Ms. C De Baca what's your thoughts on that[?] Do you agree[?]
PROBATION OFFICER: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And you agree with that being the current range the current guideline range Mr. Walsh?
MR. WALSH: I do.
THE COURT: Okay. All right so the offense level is 13 and the criminal history category is [III], establishing a guideline imprisonment range of 18 to 24 months. And then the one that's proposed would give me a guideline range of 8 to 14 months . . .

2016 Tr. at 4:23-5:18 (Court, Keefe, Probation Officer, Walsh).

         The Court then reviewed Luevano-Sanchez's previous criminal offenses -- the first for transporting illegal aliens in 1996 and the second for illegal re-entry in 2009. See 2016 Tr. at 6:19-22 (Court). The Court stated that, in light of these convictions, the Court could understand why Luevano-Sanchez had waited past November 1, 2016, “to take advantage of the new Guidelines.” 2016 Tr. at 5:23-24 (Court). Nevertheless, the Court expressed concern that the proposed imprisonment range of 8 to 14 months was inadequate to sentence Luevano-Sanchez in light of the prior convictions. See 2016 Tr. at 5:25-6:2 (Court). It observed that it was inclined to reject the plea agreement, because it would not be appropriate given the two convictions in addition to two prior deportations. See 2016 Tr. at 6:6-12 (Court).

         Luevano-Sanchez argued that the Court should take account of certain circumstances of the sentences that he served for his prior convictions. See 2016 Tr. at 6:16-7:22 (Court, Keefe). First, he argued that the 37-month sentence he served for the illegal re-entry offense was a “relatively high sentence for a first re-entry.” 2016 Tr. at 6:18-19 (Keefe). Second, he asserted that the 109-day sentence he served for the transporting illegal aliens offense reflected, in part, the fact that his “attorney at that time was able to successfully argue that it was basically a group of people traveling together, and at the time they were stopped it just happened that it had been Mr. Luevano-Sanchez [who] turn[ed out] to be the driver.” 2016 Tr. at 7:10-14 (Keefe). The Court, unpersuaded by Luevano-Sanchez' arguments, stated that it was not inclined to grant the departure. See 2016 Tr. at 8:2-3 (Court). The Court noted that the Luevano-Sanchez's 37-month term of incarceration for illegal re-entry possibly reflected the fact that “Judge Johnson . . . what troubled him was that he had a transporting illegal aliens [conviction] earlier.” 2016 Tr. at 6:23-7:2 (Court). The Court observed that Luevano-Sanchez's 2009 drug-trafficking charges were dismissed as part of his plea agreement for the illegal re-entry charge in 2009. See 2016 Tr. at 7:18-19 (Court). The Court also noted that Luevano-Sanchez now has “another trafficking conviction up in Santa Fe.” 2016 Tr. at 7:23-24 (Court).

         Luevano-Sanchez then urged the Court to examine circumstances beyond his criminal history. See 2016 Tr. at 8:8-9 (Keefe). He explained:

He has spent more than half of his life in New Mexico, lived in Santa Fe for about 26 years. At one point [he] had an employer trying to help him out in terms of offering to adopt him when he was much younger in order to try to help him establish residency. He has a family here, has children who are United States citizens. He has in the recent past lost both of his parents. His mother actually passed away approximately 6 months ago while he was in custody on the present charges. He's been in custody since November of last year for almost an entire year. And Your Honor he does have family in [Zacatecas], Mexico, he indicates he has 8 siblings still residing in Zacatecas. He does mention that there are serious problems down there in terms of a difficult place to live with the drug cartels still holding strong control of the area, and basically exercising a lot of power in the region in the area where his family resides, it makes it very difficult.

2016 Tr. at 8:10-9:4 (Keefe). Luevano-Sanchez stated that, nevertheless, he “understands that he's had these prior convictions and that . . . he's very likely to be looking at a lot more time in the future if he were to return [to the United States].” 2016 Tr. at 9:4-8 (Keefe). He acknowledged that “he needs to go back to Mexico and he's planning on exploring options, to see if possibly his family would consider relocating to Mexico.” 2016 Tr. at 9:8-11 (Keefe). He offered his remorse, stating that he “would like to apologize for returning here” and that “[i]t won't happen again, ” and he asked the Court to accept the Amended Plea Agreement so that he “can go back to Zacatecas.” 2016 Tr. at 10:18-20 (Luevano-Sanchez). Luevano-Sanchez asked the Court, alternatively, to consider imposing terms of supervised release “as an option in order to give the Court an additional amount of time to hold over [his] head if he should return to the United States in the near future.” 2016 Tr. at 9:12-22 (Keefe). He further argued that “the Government would offer the same sort of a plea based on the new Guidelines, and the fast-track plea agreement . . . [to] anyone else apparently in his situation.” 2016 Tr. at 9:24-10:5 (Keefe). Following this rationale, Luevano-Sanchez asked the Court to accept the Amended Plea Agreement and “fashion some sort of sentence that takes into consideration all the concerns of the Court.” 2016 Tr. at 10:5-8 (Keefe).

         The United States offered several additional arguments in support of Luevano-Sanchez' request that the Court accept the Amended Plea Agreement. See 2016 Tr. at 10:25-11:2 (Walsh). First, it asserted that, despite that “there is no age limit as we all know as to predicate offenses that warrant an enhancement, ” Luevano-Sanchez' transporting illegal aliens offense was “over 20 years ago, so that's quite dated.” 2016 Tr. at 11:3-7 (Walsh). The Court responded to this assertion, observing that “he's not picking up any criminal history points for it, ” and, furthermore, “he was on warning then and he was deported afterwards.” 2016 Tr. At 11:9-12 (Court). It further observed that “they probably could have charged him with re-entry just as easily as transporting but it's a similar offense is the reason I bring it up.” 2016 Tr. At 11:16-18 (Court). The Court explained:

[T]he [current version of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2] give[s] [Luevano-Sanchez] a substantial break, and push[es] it down to a level that I think is probably below what I would sentence him on my own, but nonetheless, I'd probably sentence him within the guideline range but probably toward the top which would be [] substantially less than what Judge Johnson gave him for the same offense in 2010. I realize the landscape has changed, but nonetheless, the factors that I think I would emphasize would be deterrence, specifically specific deterrence and promoting respect for the law which is equivalent [to] about his third immigration offense.

2016 Tr. at 12:24-13:11 (Court) (alterations added). Accordingly, the Court explained that “something at the high end of the range would be appropriate, and I could do, but I don't think I could push it down 14 months, I don't think I can justify that.” 2016 Tr. at 13:11-14 (Court).

         Second, the United States observed that, while Luevano-Sanchez' 2010 drug-trafficking conviction “is one that gets anyone's attention, ” he nonetheless did not serve any sentence of imprisonment for the conviction, and, moreover, “the [drug] quantities weren't all that substantial.” 2016 Tr. at 11:21-12:2 (Walsh). It stated that, concerning the 37-month sentence for his 2009 illegal re-entry offense, it did not “have any additional information as to the high sentence, ” but nonetheless conceded that it was “obviously something that should be taken into account.” 2016 Tr. at 12:2-11 (Walsh). The United States echoed Luevano-Sanchez' request and ultimately argued that the Court impose a 14-month sentence, in addition to “some supervised release as kind of an extra security blanket as well.” 2016 Tr. at ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.