ILNews

Judges uphold man's remanded drug sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a defendant’s argument that the District Court violated the cross-appeal rule when it based his new sentence on remand on evidence that wasn’t relied upon at his first sentencing hearing.

Martin Avila appealed his original 396-month sentence for drug offenses, and the 7th Circuit ordered him to be re-sentenced because the District Court relied on the wrong base offense level. The Circuit Court remanded with instructions to “consider the Guidelines range that properly reflects the amount of drugs Avila distributed.”

At his first sentencing, the probation officer attributed 24,234 kilograms of marijuana to him, which would lead to a base offense level of 36, not 38 as the report stated. On remand, the government submitted an addendum to the pre-sentence report that included the drug quantities reflected in the trial testimony of Avila’s co-conspirators that the probation officer excluded from the first report.

By using the new increased amount of drugs as stated at trial, it led to a base level offense of 38, to which Avila didn’t object. The District judge then sentenced him to 365 months in prison.

In United States of America v. Martin Avila, No. 09-2681, Avila argued the judge should have used the original drug quantities, which would have produced a base offense level of 36 and a guideline range of 235 to 293 months. He relied on Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008), to argue that the District Court can’t on remand correct a guidelines-calculation error that the government didn’t raise on cross appeal.

But his reliance on that case is misplaced, the 7th Circuit per curiam opinion stated. The appellate court remanded the case so that the District judge could re-sentence him using the correct offense level. In addition, the government didn’t add a new sentencing request because it always argued his base offense level is 38. Since that’s the base offense level the District judge initially used, the government had no reason to cross-appeal.

“Finally, Greenlaw does not bar a district judge from imposing the same sentence on remand, 554 U.S. at 253-54, and, in any case, the judge sentenced Avila to 365 months imprisonment — 31 months less than his initial 396-month sentence,” the judges wrote.

They also pointed out that the judges didn’t limit the remand to re-sentencing based on the drug quantity listed in the initial pre-sentence report, but instructed the lower court to sentence Avila based on the amount of drugs he distributed.

“Using only evidence from the original trial proceedings, the district court did precisely that. The district court thus acted within the scope of the remand order and committed no error, plain or otherwise.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT