United States v. Tomas Perez and Raul Ramirez

Citations: 858 F.2d 1272; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 19122Docket: 88-1099, 88-1254

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; October 6, 1988; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of United States v. Tomas Perez and Raul Ramirez (858 F.2d 1272), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the sentences imposed on the defendants after they pleaded guilty to charges related to an international drug trafficking operation. Both defendants were part of a twelve-count indictment involving multiple co-defendants. Tomas Perez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess cocaine and marijuana and distribution of marijuana, receiving a total sentence of twenty-six years, including a twenty-one-year term for conspiracy and a consecutive five-year term for distribution, along with supervised release and a $100 special assessment. Raul Ramirez pleaded guilty to conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, receiving a ten-year sentence for conspiracy and a consecutive five-year sentence for possession, along with a three-year supervised release and a $100 special assessment.

On appeal, Perez argued that his due process rights were violated due to reliance on false information and speculation during sentencing, specifically regarding the impact of his actions on co-conspirators. Ramirez contested his sentence on three grounds: the district court's reliance on another defendant's presentence report, the alleged lack of a written response to his objections per FED.R.CRIM.P. 32(c)(3)(D), and the improper consideration of his prior acquittal on drug charges. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the district court's sentences for both defendants.

The appellant raises several objections regarding the trial judge's comments during sentencing. First, he disputes the suggestion of money laundering, asserting a lack of evidence to support this claim. Second, he challenges the conclusion that he displayed no remorse. Third, he claims the trial judge improperly speculated about potential future crimes he might commit. Fourth, he argues that the judge's assertion of his trajectory towards becoming a major cocaine dealer was unfounded, as it was based solely on one transaction. Lastly, he contends that the judge erroneously attributed all negative consequences of drug sales and usage to him.

Appellate review of sentencing is limited to instances of abuse of discretion, provided the sentences are within statutory limits. To challenge a sentence based on erroneous information, the defendant must demonstrate that the information was both false or unreliable and a significant basis for the sentence. The trial judge's statements during the sentencing hearing are cited to refute the appellant's claims, emphasizing that Perez’s actions had significant negative impacts on others, including bribing officials and corrupting individuals who may not have committed crimes otherwise. The judge noted Perez's substantial cash holdings at the time of arrest and his acknowledgment of involvement in large-scale drug smuggling, presenting sufficient grounds for considering money laundering. The trial judge's evaluations of Perez's remorse and potential future criminal behavior are deemed appropriate, as these are within the purview of the trial court's role as the factfinder.

The trial judge possesses broad discretion in determining sentences, guided by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3577, which allows the consideration of a person's background, character, and conduct without limitations. Courts have permitted the inclusion of hearsay evidence, pending charges, and the potential deterrent effect of a sentence. A sentencing judge may factor in the severity of the offense, deterrence potential, and the defendant's contrition. Sentences should be individualized, as stated in Marshall v. United States, emphasizing the importance of tailoring sentences to the individual circumstances of the defendant. 

In Perez's case, the trial judge effectively considered all relevant factors, including mitigating circumstances such as Perez's lack of a prior criminal record and his immigrant background. The court found no error in the trial judge's consideration of these factors, affirming that as long as the judge demonstrates awareness and good faith in considering mitigating factors, the weight assigned to them is seldom questioned.

Ramirez argues for remand for resentencing based on alleged violations of FED.R.CRIM.P. 32(c)(3)(D), claiming the trial court did not document findings on disputed matters in the Presentencing Report. Ramirez raises five specific objections regarding inaccuracies in the report, including misrepresentation of his involvement with cocaine, lack of remorse, the timeline of a ranch purchase, the volume of marijuana smuggling, and references to his cooperation. FED.R.CRIM.P. 32(c)(3)(D) safeguards a defendant’s due process rights by ensuring clear documentation of contested facts in sentencing. To qualify for resentencing, a defendant must demonstrate that disputed inaccuracies were presented to the sentencing court and that the court failed to address or determine the relevance of this disputed information in the sentencing decision.

The trial judge made written findings on contested issues in the Presentencing Report, which were signed on February 17, 1988, and sent to the United States Probation Office but not initially included in the record. These findings were later added to the appeal record through a stipulation between defense counsel and the Government. The trial judge indicated that the disputed matters would not influence the sentencing decision, thus no violation of Rule 32(c)(3)(D) occurred.

Ramirez contends that the trial court improperly relied on confidential information from his brother Augustine's sealed Presentence Report without allowing him to rebut it. However, there is no evidence in the record showing that the trial judge referenced this confidential information, making Ramirez's claim speculative and unfounded.

Lastly, Ramirez argues that his sentence was enhanced due to a prior acquittal on drug charges. The trial judge did not enhance the sentence based on the acquittal but mentioned a lack of remorse and subsequent involvement in drug-related activities. The court cited precedents allowing consideration of a prior acquittal as long as it is not used to enhance the sentence, affirming that the trial court's actions were consistent with established legal standards.

The Supreme Court emphasizes the considerable discretion of sentencing judges in determining appropriate sentences, as established in Williams v. New York. The Court clarified that a sentencing judge's role extends beyond assessing guilt; it involves gathering comprehensive information about the defendant's life and characteristics to inform the punishment within statutory limits. In the current case, there is no evidence disputing the trial judge's statement that the prior acquittal was considered solely to evaluate the appellant's remorse, not to increase the sentence. Consequently, the trial judge's sentence is upheld. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Perez was initially sentenced to two concurrent twenty-five year terms of incarceration, along with five years of supervised release and a $100 special assessment, although this sentence was later amended. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 and the Sentencing Act of 1987, enacted after the crimes, do not alter the standard for appellate sentence review. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(D) mandates that if any factual inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report are claimed by the defendant or their counsel, the court must either make a finding on the allegation or state that no finding is needed because the disputed matter will not affect sentencing, with a written record of these determinations included with the presentence report.