US v. Cirilo-Munoz, No. 05-2469. The earlier opinion is here, and our coverage is here. As DotD points out here, this case shows just how divided judges are about what Booker and its progeny really direct Courts of Appeal to do. These appeals arise from the fact that the actual perpetrator – a policeman turned assassin turned cooperator – received a longer sentence then this defendant. The facts read like Puerto Rican gangster novel. Only they are more chilling. The application of the guidelines was such at the District Court judge could not find a way to reduce his sentence.
Judge Torruella explains the role of a court of appeals as:
Thus, I see our role in determining the validity of a sentence whose reasonableness is questioned as one requiring analysis of the sentence and the reasons given by the sentencing court in reaching its conclusions, tested against the record of the case to determine whether the reasoning is supported by the record, and ultimately, whether the sentence is reasonable [in light of the 3553(a) factors and whether it is "sufficient but not greater than necessary" to comply with the basic aims listed in § 3553(a)(2)].
Torruella then explains how this sentence, based on the facts, fails on all accounts. He puts considerable effort into this, going though the entire record, and then citing a number of law review articles.
Lipez says that the opinion is “superb” but thinks that the District Judge was too vague. Lipez also goes deep into the record.
I don’t think that any summary can do this case justice, and everyone is just going to have to read the puppy. I don’t feel bad telling you to do this. It is obvious that the court put a lot of time into it, and therefore, you should to.
Comments