United States v. Garcia, No. 14-2368 (7th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals . Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Garcia pled guilty to two counts of distribution of heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The court found that Garcia had a Criminal History Category of V and a total offense level of 19, which led to a guideline range of 57 to 71 months. The government recommended a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment, arguing that Garcia’s criminal history was almost that of a career offender and the career offender guideline range was approximately 151 to 188 months. Garcia’s counsel recommended a sentence at the low end of the range, 57 months, and argued that Garcia’s traumatic childhood and his acceptance of Christianity were strong factors in mitigation. Defendant also made a statement in allocution that addressed both of those mitigating factors. The district court sentenced Garcia to 108 months and imposed three years of supervised release without any consideration of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. Garcia presents three issues on appeal. The Seventh Circuit remanded. The court adequately explained why an above-range sentence was appropriate, but made no statement of reasons justifying the non-mandatory conditions of supervised release or the length of the term of supervised release.
Download PDF
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 14 2368 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ALEXSIS J. GARCIA, A/K/A ALEXIS JAMES GARCIA, Defendant Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 13 CR 40097 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED APRIL 22, 2015 — DECIDED OCTOBER 29, 2015 ____________________ Before POSNER, KANNE, Circuit Judges, and DARRAH, Dis trict Judge. DARRAH, District Judge. This is a direct appeal of a crimi nal sentence against defendant appellant Alexsis J. Garcia (“Garcia”). Pursuant to an open plea agreement, Garcia pled Of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. 2 No. 14 2368 guilty to two counts of distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The district court found that Garcia had a Criminal His tory Category of V and a total offense level of 19, which led to a guideline range of 57 to 71 months. The Government recommended a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment. The Government argued that Garcia’s criminal history was al most that of a career offender and that Garcia should be sen tenced between the guideline range of 57 to 71 months and the career offender guideline range of approximately 151 to 188 months. Garcia’s counsel recommended a sentence at the low end of the range, 57 months, and argued that Garcia’s traumatic childhood and his acceptance of Christianity were strong factors in mitigation. Defendant also made a state ment in allocution that addressed both of those mitigating factors. The district court sentenced Garcia to 108 months in pris on. In addition, the district court imposed three years of su pervised release without any consideration of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Garcia presents three issues on appeal. First, Garcia ar gues that the district court did not offer a sufficiently com pelling justification for imposing a sentence above the guide line range. Second, Garcia argues that the district court committed a procedural error when it stated that it intended to impose a sentence that was 27 months above the high end of the 57 to 71 month guideline range, but then imposed a sentence of 108 months’ imprisonment, 37 months above the high end of the guideline range. Finally, Garcia argues that the district court erred by imposing discretionary supervised No. 14 2368 3 release conditions without making any 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) findings to support them. A district court’s sentence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, regardless of whether that sentence is imposed inside or outside the Guidelines range. Gall v. Unit ed States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). An above range sentence is upheld so long as the district court applied the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and adequately explains why the penalty is appropriate. See United States v. Hill, 645 F.3d 900, 911 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Courtland, 642 F.3d 545, 550–51 (7th Cir. 2011). The district court reasonably determined that previous incarcerations had not deterred Garcia from committing se rious crimes and that an above the range sentence was nec essary to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B) (C). The court also noted that Garcia remained drug free and helped people while he was imprisoned but had failed to do so when released. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D). Further, the court specifically found that the factors in aggravation out weighed the factors in mitigation. The district court applied the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and adequately explained why an above the range penalty is appropriate. The Government has conceded that the case must be re manded for a new sentencing hearing on the imposition of the conditions for supervised release. “[S]entencing judges should impose conditions of supervised release which are (a) appropriately tailored to the defendant s offense, personal history and characteristics; (b) involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to achieve the goals of deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation; and (c) sufficiently specific to place the defendant on notice of 4 No. 14 2368 what is expected.” United States v. Parrish Kappes, 782 F.3d 828, 847–48 (7th Cir. 2015). Further, “a sentencing court must justify the conditions and the length of the term at sentenc ing by an adequate statement of reasons, reasonably related to the applicable § 3553(a) factors.” Id. at 845 (citing United States v. Bryant, 754 F.3d 443, 445 (7th Cir. 2014)). In this instance, the district court made no statement of reasons justifying the non mandatory conditions of super vised release or the length of the term of supervised release. Therefore, the case must be remanded to the district court for resentencing and a statement of reasons in justification of the length and conditions of supervised release. Garcia also argues that the district court committed a procedural error by imposing a 108 month sentence but also stating that the sentence would be 27 months above the high end of the guideline range, which would have resulted in a sentence of 98 months. Procedural errors include: “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erro neous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sen tence—including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. When imposing the sentence, the district court stated: The Court, having considered all the infor mation of the presentence report, including guideline computations and factors set forth in 18 USC 3553(a), pursuant to [the] Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it is the judgment of this Court that the defendant, Alexsis James Garcia is hereby committed to the custody of the Bu No. 14 2368 5 reau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of 108 months on each count to be served concur rently. That’s 27 months, a little over two years above the high end of the guideline range, which the Court, in balancing the aggravation and mitigation, feels that that’s a 27 month above the guideline is appropriate. Sent. Tr. at 18–19. The written judgment stated that Garcia was sentenced to 108 months on Counts 1 and 2 of the in dictment, the sentences to run concurrently. The district court committed a procedural error by imposing a sentence that was 37 months above the guideline range. Usually, if the oral and written sentences are in conflict, the oral pronouncement controls. United States v. Daddino, 5 F.3d 262, 266 (7th Cir. 1993). “This rule can only prevail, however, if the oral language is unambiguous.” Id. It would be permissible to determine that the written judgement and commitment order controls. See United States v. Bonanno, 146 F.3d 502, 511 (7th Cir. 1998). In this case, however, the district court on remand will be afforded an opportunity to sentence anew and assure there is no conflict. It is therefore ORDERED that the case is remanded for resentencing. This will further provide the district court an opportunity to give clear justification for the length and conditions of supervised release and clarify its ruling as to the length of Garcia’s sentence.
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.
