United States v. Sanchez, No. 99 CR. 228-12 (RWS), 2007 WL 60517 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2007)
Sinply put, Sanchez was convicted of participating in a narcotics conspiracy. His Guidelines offense level/Criminal History Category analysis produced an advisory Guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment. The court, however, sentenced him to the mandatory minimum 240 months imprisonment principally because: (1) a longer sentence was not necessary for purposes of deterrence (Sanchez will be close to 50 years old upon the expiration of the mandatory minimum); (2) rehabilitation and improvement have to be balanced against punishment and deterrence (Sanchez has to have something to look forward to).
While 240 months is surely a sufficient sentence (even if it is 100+ months lower than the advisory Guidelines range), does such a large variance risk poking a stick in the eye of the Government? In other words, would the Government appeal and seek a precedential Second Circuit decision that would have the effect of restricting such large Guidelines variances ni narcotics cases? And, is such a large variance merely a sneaky means around the Second Circuit Castillo decision (discussed here), which held that "district courts do not have the authority to reject unilaterally the 100:1 ratio [crack/powder] on policy grounds"?
Comments