Seventh Circuit finds appeal over the reasonableness of a guideline sentence to be frivolous.

• Author: Ziemer, David

Byline: David Ziemer

The Seventh Circuit issued harsh language on Sept. 11 in finding an appeal over the reasonableness of a guideline sentence to be frivolous.

Luis Gonzalez pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiring to possess with intent to sell 100 or more kilograms of marijuana. He conceded that because he had two prior convictions for felony drug offenses (also involving marijuana), he was eligible to be sentenced as a career offender.

His guidelines range was 262 to 327 months in prison, and the district judge sentenced him to 276 months. Gonzales raised no challenges on appeal to the judge's guidelines computation, but argued the sentence is unreasonably long. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in a decision by Judge Richard Posner.

Gonzales argued that the sentence was unreasonable based on the following factors: his previous convictions were nonviolent and involved only marijuana, rather than a more dangerous drug; he provided substantial assistance to the government; he will be in his late 60s when he is released from prison; and because he was purportedly coerced into committing the current offense by his partners in a previous drug enterprise, to whom he owed $500,000.

The court began its analysis in no uncertain terms: "These are exceedingly poor reasons for questioning the reasonableness of his sentence."

The court dismissed the argument concerning non-violent marijuana offenses as "quarreling with Congress's judgment that nonviolent offenses involving marijuana are serious crimes."

The court concluded that imposition of a below-guideline sentence for this reason would constitute a disagreement with legislative judgment that is not permitted, citing U.S. v. Miller, 450 F.3d 270, 275 (7th Cir. 2006).

The court added, "True, the judge is not required to give a guidelines sentence (unless that sentence is prescribed by a statute), but he is not permitted to say, 'I believe the Commission selected the wrong sentencing range for marijuana dealers and so I am not going to sentence the defendant within that range.'"

The court also noted that the offense occurred less...