United States District Court, D. New Mexico
P. Martinez, United States Attorney David M. Walsh Norman
Cairns Assistant United States Attorneys Attorneys for the
Michael A. Keefe Federal Public Defender Attorney for the
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
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.
Court takes its facts from the Presentence Investigation
Report (disclosed September 28, 2016)(Doc.
20)(“PSR”). 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. 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.
“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.
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.
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.
on October 27, 2015, Luevano-Sanchez, as court records
indicate,  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.
explains that the current offense occurred during this period
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.
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
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
The PSR and the Amended Plea Agreement.
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),  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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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. 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.
The Court's Revisions to the PSR.
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). 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. See PSR ¶ 19, at 4.
The Amended Plea Agreement Hearing and the Court's
Rejection of the Amended Plea Agreement.
Court then held a hearing on November 7, 2016. See
Transcript of Hearing (taken November 7, 2016)(“2016
Tr.”). 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 . 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,
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,
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).
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).
then urged the Court to examine circumstances beyond his
criminal history. See 2016 Tr. at 8:8-9 (Keefe). He
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).
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
[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
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 ...