USA v. Francisco Narvaez, No. 16-2349 (7th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted January 5, 2017* Decided February 7, 2017 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 16- 2349 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 10 CR 759- 2 John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge. FRANCISCO NARVAEZ, also known as Paco, Defendant- Appellant. Order The district court sentenced Francisco Narvaez to 72 months’ imprisonment, within the Guideline range of 70 to 87 months calculated by the presentence report. His lawyer did not protest the use of that range. But on appeal Narvaez contends that the range should have been lower—in particular, that he should We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and argument would not significantly aid the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). * No. 16- 2349 Page 2 have been in criminal history category I rather than criminal history category II. Confessing error, the prosecutor has conceded that Narvaez is correct. The presentence report counted, toward Narvaez’s criminal history, a 2005 conviction in Illinois for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. Such a conviction is indeed on his record, but the Supreme Court of Illinois has held that the statute under which Narvaez had been convicted violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment. See People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 (Sept. 12, 2013). The Sentencing Commission has decided that convictions under statutes later found to be unconstitutional must not be counted toward criminal history. U.S.S.G. §4A1.2 Application Note 6. It follows that the district court erred in calculating Narvaez’s recommended range, and the error is sufficiently well established and (potentially) consequential that it meets the standard for correction under the plain- error standard. Whether a lower recommended range affects the sentence is a question for the district court to consider. The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
