U.S. v. Bustos

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 100-month term of incarceration on drug conspiracy charge, even though defendant argued that said sentence was substantively unreasonable, and that 60-month term of incarceration was more appropriate, where: (1) his criminal history calculation over represented his actual criminal history; (2) his co-defendants played larger role in charged offense; and (3) he was of advanced age, was deportable, had poor health, and had low likelihood of recidivism. However, instant sentence was at low end of applicable guideline range, record showed that defendant played vital role in setting up drug purchase, and defendant’s extensive criminal history demonstrated need for significant sentence to promote respect for law and to provide deterrence to others. Fact that defendant was 62 years old at time of charged offense did not constitute persuasive mitigation evidence, where Dist. Ct. could properly note that defendant made choice to commit said offense at said age, after having committed two prior drug offenses. Also, Dist. Ct, could properly note that defendant’s status as deportable alien could prove beneficial to him, where he would not have to face any conditions of supervised release if he was deported following his incarceration.