United States v. Solis-Sanchez ( 2023 )

22-237
United States v. Solis-Sanchez
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.
CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS
PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A
SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST
CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH
THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
2 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
3 17th day of April, two thousand twenty-three.
4
5 Present:
6 DENNIS JACOBS,
7 GERARD E. LYNCH,
8 EUNICE C. LEE,
9 Circuit Judges.
10 _____________________________________
11
12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
13
14 Appellee,
15
16 v. No. 22-237
17
18 LUCIANO SOLIS-SANCHEZ,
19
20 Defendant-Appellant.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 For Defendant-Appellant: Daniel Erwin, Assistant Federal Defender, for Terence
24 S. Ward, Federal Defender, Hartford, CT.
25
26 For Plaintiff-Appellee: Angel M. Krull, Connor M. Reardon, Assistant United
27 States Attorneys, for Vanessa Roberts Avery, United
28 States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New
29 Haven, CT.
30
1
1 Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
2 (Bryant, J.).
3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
4 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
5 Defendant-Appellant Luciano Solis-Sanchez was convicted after pleading guilty to one
6 count of reentry by a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and one count of possessing
7 with intent to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
8 841(b)(1)(B)(viii) and 841(b)(1)(C), for which the district court sentenced him to an aggregate
9 sentence of 57 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Solis-Sanchez argues that the district court
10 committed two errors when it imposed the sentence. First, he argues that the district court
11 improperly considered unproven facts regarding payment of his bond in a related state court case.
12 Second, he argues that the district court misapprehended its own discretion to vary below the
13 Guidelines range. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
14 history of the case, and the issues on appeal, which we reference here only as necessary to explain
15 our decision.
16 A. Factual and Procedural Background
17 On March 3, 2020, police arrested Solis-Sanchez in Waterbury, Connecticut, on state
18 charges of possession of narcotics with intent to sell, possession of drugs near a prohibited place,
19 operating a motor vehicle without a license, and driving the wrong way on a one-way street (the
20 “state charges”). After this arrest, Solis-Sanchez posted bond with the help of a bail bondsman.
21 Alerted by the state charges to Solis-Sanchez’s unauthorized presence in the country, on January
22 13, 2021, authorities arrested Solis-Sanchez for illegal reentry. On the same day, law
23 enforcement observed the delivery of a package that contained methamphetamine to Solis-
2
1 Sanchez’s home, and a subsequent search of his house revealed multiple packages of cocaine.
2 Solis-Sanchez was later charged in federal court with reentry by a removed alien and possessing
3 with intent to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine (the “federal charges”).
4 On June 24, 2021, Solis-Sanchez entered a plea of guilty to the federal charges. The plea
5 agreement included a Guidelines calculation of a total offense level of 25 and a Criminal History
6 Category of I. The Guidelines range was 57 to 71 months in prison, a fine of $20,000 to
7 $200,000, and a supervised release term of at least four years.
8 In Solis-Sanchez’s subsequent sentencing memorandum, he sought a sentence substantially
9 below the Guidelines range, arguing that he committed his crimes out of desperation. For
10 support, Solis-Sanchez asserted that he began selling drugs to repay a $9,000 debt he owed to the
11 human smuggler, colloquially known as a “coyote,” who had helped him across the border. He
12 asked the district court to sentence him below the applicable Guidelines range, arguing that the
13 court had the discretion to do so under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007). 1 Solis-
14 Sanchez urged the district court to exercise its discretion under Kimbrough based on the fact that
15 had a proposed immigration bill, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration
16 Modernization Act of 2013, been ratified, he could have qualified for “legal status with a pathway
17 to citizenship,” which would have obviated the need for him to commit these offenses. Joint
18 App’x at 31.
19 In response, the government’s sentencing memorandum questioned Solis-Sanchez’s claim
20 that he sold drugs to repay the coyote. To undermine Solis-Sanchez’s stated justification, the
1
Under Kimbrough, a district court may depart from the applicable Guidelines range based on its
policy judgment that a Guidelines provision does not appropriately reflect the sentencing factors
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
3
1 government pointed, among other things, to his payment to the bondsman immediately following
2 his arrest for the state charges. While the exact amount that Solis-Sanchez paid is unknown, the
3 bail bondsman could have charged him up to $10,000, or 10 percent of his bond—a value greater
4 than Solis-Sanchez’s claimed $9,000 debt.
5 At the sentencing on January 6, 2022, the district court addressed the arguments presented
6 by Solis-Sanchez and the government. As to whether Solis-Sanchez’s posting of state bond was
7 relevant, the court noted that “the only reason it’s even germane” was in relation to Solis-Sanchez’s
8 own explanation for why he “was selling drugs in the first place,” Joint App’x at 127, and it assured
9 Solis-Sanchez’s counsel, “be that as it may, you needn’t comment on that if you choose not to.
10 Feel free to move on,” id. at 129. Next, in discussing Solis-Sanchez’s stated reasons for
11 committing the offenses, the district court said, in part: “This country is our home. Mexico is the
12 home of Mexicans. They have the right to tell me I can’t or under what conditions I can go there.
13 And I act at my peril if I choose to ignore that—even if I feel I have a good reason.” Id. at 134.
14 The court justified its sentence by citing: (1) Solis-Sanchez’s lack of respect for the law, (2) the
15 proportionality of the punishment to the underlying conduct, and (3) public safety concerns. It
16 then sentenced Solis-Sanchez to 57 months’ incarceration—the bottom of the Guidelines range.
17 The court also imposed a fine of $1,000 to be enforced if Solis-Sanchez’s bond money for the state
18 charges was not “forfeited.” Id. at 136.
19 After the court announced its sentence, Solis-Sanchez objected on grounds of substantive
20 and procedural unreasonableness. His counsel first objected to the potential impact that the
21 government’s reference to Solis-Sanchez’s ability to pay state bond may have had on the sentence
22 imposed. In response, the court stated, “State bond didn’t have anything to do with my decision.
23 I articulated my reasons.” Joint App’x at 139. Solis-Sanchez’s counsel then stated its other
4
1 objection: that the court could have exercised its discretion to vary below the Guidelines range
2 “pursuant to Kimbrough.” Id. at 139-40. The court replied, “I understand that I have the
3 ultimate discretion to impose a sentence which is not beyond the statutory limit . . . and I am not
4 bound by the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines.” Id. at 140. This appeal
5 followed.
6 B. Standard of Review
7 This Court “review[s] sentences only for ‘reasonableness,’ a deferential standard limited
8 to identifying abuse of discretion regardless of whether a challenged sentence is ‘inside, just
9 outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Jones, 531 F.3d 163,
10 170 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)). This review “involves
11 both an examination of the length of the sentence (substantive reasonableness) as well as the
12 procedure employed in arriving at the sentence (procedural reasonableness).” United States v.
13 Bryant, 976 F.3d 165, 179 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To impose a
14 procedurally reasonable sentence, a district court must (1) normally determine the applicable
15 Guidelines range, (2) consider the Guidelines along with the other factors under 18 U.S.C. §
16 3553(a), and (3) determine whether to impose a Guidelines sentence or a non-Guidelines
17 sentence.” Id. (internal quotation and alteration marks omitted).
18 C. Discussion
19 On appeal, Solis-Sanchez first argues that the district court committed procedural error by
20 allegedly relying on the government’s comments regarding the state bond payment when it
21 imposed the sentence. He insists that the government’s bond arguments impacted sentencing
22 because “the [d]istrict [c]ourt itself noted in questioning defense counsel that the bond payment
23 impeached the defense’s argument of economic desperation.” Appellant’s Br. at 25.
5
1 We do not find that argument compelling. The district court explicitly noted that Solis-
2 Sanchez’s state bond had nothing to do with the sentence imposed. See Joint App’x at 139. It
3 also provided a detailed explanation of the reasons for the sentence it selected—i.e., respect for
4 the law, proportionality, and public safety—none of which had anything to do with Solis-
5 Sanchez’s state bond. Finally, when asking Solis-Sanchez about the state bond, the court neither
6 questioned his right to a reasonable bond nor forced Solis-Sanchez to explain more than he wished
7 to. See id. at 129. 2 For these reasons, the district court did not commit procedural error in its
8 imposition of Solis-Sanchez’s sentence.
9 Solis-Sanchez further argues that the district court erred by misapprehending its authority
10 to impose a sentence below the Guidelines range. He specifically contends that the district court
11 “abused its discretion because it did not fully appreciate the extent of its authority . . . to vary from
12 the Guidelines” under Kimbrough v. United States. Appellant’s Br. at 28.
13 We find this argument unpersuasive. Here, the district court expressly stated that it
14 understood that it had discretion to vary from the Guidelines. See Joint App’x at 140; see also
15 United States v. Martin, 78 F.3d 808, 815 (2d Cir. 1996) (where a “district court explicitly state[s]
16 that its refusal to depart [from the Guidelines] was discretionary . . . the court’s refusal to depart
2
Solis-Sanchez also suggests that the district court impermissibly relied upon the state bond by
imposing a $1,000 fine conditioned on whether the bond was forfeited. But, as noted by the
government, that condition actually benefited Solis-Sanchez. That is because, if, as his counsel
represented at sentencing, Solis-Sanchez did forfeit his bond payment, he would not be subject to
the fine. See Joint App’x at 136. In other words, the bond itself had no relevance to the fine
other than that it happened to be a known source from which funds subject to fine could potentially
return to Solis-Sanchez’s control, if they were indeed not forfeited. See U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a) (“The
court shall impose a fine in all cases, except where the defendant establishes that he is unable to
pay and is not likely to become able to pay any fine.”); 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a)(1) (“In determining
whether to impose a fine, and the amount, time for payment, and method of payment of a fine, the
court shall consider . . . [the defendant’s] financial resources[.]”).
6
1 downwardly is not reviewable.”). But the district court explained that it chose not to sentence
2 Solis-Sanchez to a below-Guidelines sentence because it was not persuaded that Solis-Sanchez’s
3 proffered policy considerations warranted mitigation. See Joint App’x at 140. For these
4 reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion: it understood that it could vary from the
5 Guidelines, but it permissibly chose not to do so.
6 We have considered Solis-Sanchez’s remaining arguments and find them to be without
7 merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
8 FOR THE COURT:
9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7