USA v. Francisco Narvaez


Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. The judgment of the district court is VACATED, and the case is remanded for resentencing. Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge; Ann Claire Williams, Circuit Judge and David F. Hamilton, Circuit Judge. [6816860-1] [6816860] [16-2349]

Download PDF
Case: 16-2349 Document: 23 Filed: 02/07/2017 NONPRECEDENTIAL  DISPOSITION   To  be  cited  only  in  accordance  with  Fed.  R.  App.  P.  32.1   Pages: 2     United States Court of Appeals For  the  Seventh  Circuit   Chicago,  Illinois  60604   Submitted  January  5,  2017*   Decided  February  7,  2017       Before     FRANK  H.  EASTERBROOK,  Circuit  Judge     ANN  CLAIRE  WILLIAMS,  Circuit  Judge     DAVID  F.  HAMILTON,  Circuit  Judge       No.  16-­‐‑2349   UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA,     Plaintiff-­‐‑Appellee,       v.   Appeal  from  the  United   States  District  Court  for   the  Northern  District  of   Illinois,  Eastern  Division.   No.  10  CR  759-­‐‑2   John  J.  Tharp,  Jr.,  Judge.   FRANCISCO  NARVAEZ,  also  known  as  Paco,     Defendant-­‐‑Appellant.         Order       The  district  court  sentenced  Francisco  Narvaez  to  72  months’  imprisonment,   within  the  Guideline  range  of  70  to  87  months  calculated  by  the  presentence   report.  His  lawyer  did  not  protest  the  use  of  that  range.  But  on  appeal  Narvaez   contends  that  the  range  should  have  been  lower—in  particular,  that  he  should    We  have  unanimously  agreed  to  decide  the  case  without  argument  because  the  briefs  and   record  adequately  present  the  facts  and  legal  arguments,  and  argument  would  not  significantly   aid  the  court.  See  Fed.  R.  App.  P.  34(a)(2)(C).   * Case: 16-2349 Document: 23 Filed: 02/07/2017 Pages: 2 No.  16-­‐‑2349     Page  2       have  been  in  criminal  history  category  I  rather  than  criminal  history  category  II.   Confessing  error,  the  prosecutor  has  conceded  that  Narvaez  is  correct.       The  presentence  report  counted,  toward  Narvaez’s  criminal  history,  a  2005   conviction  in  Illinois  for  aggravated  unlawful  use  of  a  weapon.  Such  a  conviction   is  indeed  on  his  record,  but  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois  has  held  that  the  statute   under  which  Narvaez  had  been  convicted  violates  the  Constitution’s  Second   Amendment.  See  People  v.  Aguilar,  2013  IL  112116  (Sept.  12,  2013).  The  Sentencing   Commission  has  decided  that  convictions  under  statutes  later  found  to  be   unconstitutional  must  not  be  counted  toward  criminal  history.  U.S.S.G.  §4A1.2   Application  Note  6.  It  follows  that  the  district  court  erred  in  calculating   Narvaez’s  recommended  range,  and  the  error  is  sufficiently  well  established  and   (potentially)  consequential  that  it  meets  the  standard  for  correction  under  the   plain-­‐‑error  standard.  Whether  a  lower  recommended  range  affects  the  sentence   is  a  question  for  the  district  court  to  consider.       The  judgment  of  the  district  court  is  vacated,  and  the  case  is  remanded  for   resentencing.    

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?