United States v. Montgomery (2008)

DISCUSSION Mr. Campos-Lucas asserts his sentence is unreasonable. “[Tjhis Court reviews sentences for reasonableness, as informed by the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors.” United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.2008); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 3 U.S.S.G. § 5K2.1 4 Compare United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1235-1236 (10th Cir. 2008)(“The touchstone of the inquiry is whether [the death] was reasonably foreseeable…”); United States v. Johnson, 151 F. Supp. 3d 1226, 1233 (D.N.M. 2015)(“The Court concludes that § 5K2.1 contains a reasonably foreseeable requirement…”) with United States v. Diaz, 285 F.3d 92, 101 (1st Cir. 2002) (“We see no b…

See United States v. Robertson, 568 F.3d 1203, 1211 (10th Cir. 2009); United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir. 2008).

Applicable Law “[T]his Court reviews sentences for reasonableness, as informed by the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors.” United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir. 2008); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.2008).

The potential issues for appeal concern Mr. Ramirez-Sosa’s sentence. “[T]his Court reviews sentences for reasonableness, as informed by the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors.” United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.2008); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.2008).

A. Reasonableness of the Sentence “[T]his Court reviews sentences for reasonableness, as informed by the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors.” United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.2008); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

The Anders brief considers a single issue: whether Mr. Traper-Cortez’s 42-month sentence is reasonable. “[T]his Court reviews sentences for reasonableness, as informed by the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors.” United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.2008); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Id. (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 ). “[T]his Court reviews sentences for reasonableness, as informed by the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors.” United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.2008); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

See United States v. Martinez, 588 F.3d 301, 318-19 (6th Cir.2009) (holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1347 (a), which provides for an enhanced sentence if a health care fraud "results in death,” requires proximate cause); United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1235-36 (10th Cir.2008) (holding that U.S.S.G. § 5K2.1, which calls for an upwards departure "[i]f death resulted,” applies if the defendant should have foreseen that his conduct could result in death); United States v. Di…

United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Collins, 122 F.3d 1297, 1303 (10th Cir.1997) (establishing the four-part test).

United States v. Sells, 541 F.3d 1227, 1237 (10th Cir.2008). “[W]e apply [this] deferential abuse of discretion standard with reasonableness review ... whether the sentence imposed is inside or outside the Guidelines range.” United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229 , 2008 WL 5401410, at *2 (10th Cir. Dec.30, 2008).

The Tenth Circuit stated that, while Montgomery may not have known his wife’s plans in great detail, like the defendant in United States v. Fortier, 242 F.3d at 1224 , “by way of his superior knowledge and unique perspective, [the defendant] reasonably could have foreseen that his unlawful actions could result in his wife’s death.” 550 F.3d at 1236 (emphasis added).

Br. 76; see also United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229 , 1231 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (exercising discretion to overlook waiver caused by “failure to raise an argument in an opening brief”).

See United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229 , 1231 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). 4 Appellate Case: 19-7055 Document: 010110650276 Date Filed: 02/28/2022 Page: 5 II.

See id.; see also United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229 , 1231 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (concluding that “sentencing appeal [wa]s not moot because [defendant’s] unexpired term of supervised release potentially could be reduced if we were to render a ruling favorable to him on his upward departure challenge” (emphasis added)); United States v. Westover, 435 F.3d 1273, 1277 (10th Cir. 2006) (finding it “sufficient to prevent this appeal from being moot” that district court on…

See United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229 , 1231 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (noting that failure to make argument on appeal results in waiver).

See United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229 , 1231 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (exercising discretion to ignore waiver because “the issue ha[d] been briefed fully and argued by the parties”). 12 To convict Roman under § 924(c)(1)(A), the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Roman (1) distributed methamphetamine to Chavez; (2) used or carried a firearm; and (3) did so during and in relation to that distribution.

See United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.2008).

See United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.2008).

See United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.2008).

See Demis v. Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508 , 513 n. 2 (6th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229 , 1231 n. 1 (10th Cir.2008). 3 .

See United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.2008).

See United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.2008).

See United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.2008).

See Demis v. Sniez-ek, 558 F.3d 508 , 513 n. 2 (6th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229 , 1231 n. 1 (10th Cir.2008).

See United States v. Montgomery, 550 F.3d 1229 , 1231 n. 1 (10th Cir.2008). .