Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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. Delatorre-Vasquez

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

August 2, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
SERGIO DELATORRE-VASQUEZ, Defendant.

          TENTATIVE FINDINGS

          John M. Gerrard United States District Judge.

         The Court has received the modified/expedited presentence investigation report in this case. There are no motions for departure or variance. The defendant has filed a sentencing statement (filing 27) in which he objects to the presentence report, and a separate motion for credit for time spent in detention (filing 28).

         IT IS ORDERED:

         1. The Court will consult and follow the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to the extent permitted and required by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) and subsequent cases. In this regard, the Court gives notice that, unless otherwise ordered, it will:

(a) give the advisory Guidelines respectful consideration within the context of each individual case and will filter the Guidelines' advice through the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, but will not afford the Guidelines any particular or "substantial" weight;
(b) resolve all factual disputes relevant to sentencing by the greater weight of the evidence and without the aid of a jury;
(c) impose upon the United States the burden of proof on all Guidelines enhancements;
(d) impose upon the defendant the burden of proof on all Guidelines mitigators;
(e) depart from the advisory Guidelines, if appropriate, using pre-Booker departure theory; and
(f) in cases where a departure using pre-Booker departure theory is not warranted, deviate or vary from the Guidelines when there is a principled reason justifying a sentence different than that called for by application of the advisory Guidelines, again without affording the Guidelines any particular or "substantial" weight.

         2. The defendant has objected (filing 27) to the presentence report's assessment of three criminal history points for a 1990 drug conviction. The issue is the "commencement of the instant offense" for purposes of the 15-year look-back criminal history period. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(1). The defendant was released from incarceration in 1995, and according to the presentence report commenced the instant offense in 1998, resulting in the assessment of criminal history points. The defendant, however, asserts that he left the country and returned in 2011 before being found here in 2012-so, he argues, he commenced the instant offense in 2011, more than 15 years after his 1995 release.

         The defendant is correct that an illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), begins on the date of reentry. United States v. Delgado-Hernandez, 646 F.3d 562, 567 (8th Cir. 2011). And he is also correct that his relevant conduct is calculated from the date of his last reentry, immediately preceding his being found in the United States. Id. "If [he] had previously entered and then left the country, he avoided prosecution for that distinct offense when he left." Id. (quotation omitted).

         But the defendant must present evidence or testimony suggesting that he did, in fact, leave the United States and illegally reenter sometime after 1998. Id. As a general matter, it is the government's burden to show whatever facts are needed to justify the assessment of criminal history points. See, United States v. Randall, 472 F.3d 763, 766 (10th Cir. 2006); United States v. DiPina, 178 F.3d 68, 75 (1st Cir. 1999); cf., United States v. Stapleton, 316 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Early, 77 F.3d 242, 245 (8th Cir. 1996). But it does not appear to be disputed that the defendant did illegally reenter the United States in 1998. Rather, the question is whether he left again, and returned again, after that: and the defendant must present evidence to support that contention. See Delgado-Hernandez, 646 F.3d at 567. Accordingly, the Court will resolve this issue on the evidence presented at sentencing.

         3. The defendant has also filed a motion for credit for time spent in ICE custody, or the custody of Lancaster County pursuant to an ICE detainer. Filing 28. And, he argues, he spent several months in ...


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.