United States v. Hilario, Docket No. 05-3972-cr (2d Cir. May 24, 2006) (Sotomayor, Wesley, Hall) (per curiam): This Blog is puzzled once more by the Court’s decision to issue a published decision rather than a summary order in this case (while giving seemingly more deserving appeals the ol’ back-of-the-hand summary order treatment). Here, the Court rejects Hilario’s two challenges to his sentence (for importing ecstasy), challenges that — at least as described in the opinion, or unless this Blog is missing something — seem to straddle the silly-to-frivolous line.
First, Hilario claims that the district court erred because it departed downward by only 26 months to account for the 26 months that he previously spent in a Belgian jail for a “related offense.” Hilario claims that the court should have departed downward by an additional 4 months because he “might have earned [the 4 months as good-conduct credit] had he served his 26-month Belgian sentence in [a] federal prison” rather than a Belgian jail. Op. 2. The Court rejects this argument by pointing out that “good-time credit earned by a defendant is determined by the BOP based on a prisoner’s behavior while incarcerated in a BOP-controlled environment” and “Hilario was previously incarcerated in a foreign jail” not run by the BOP. Id. [Of course, one wonders why the Court did not simply say, “You got 26 months ‘credit’ for the 26 months you served. Why should you get any more credit?” Maybe we are missing something.]
Second, Hilario claims that the district court should’ve given him a lower sentence under Section 3553(a)(6) because of the “possibility,” based on “anecdotal evidence and past experience,” that a co-defendant “might be transfered pursuant to treaty to Belgium … and may receive a lesser sentence than he would for the same conduct in the United States.” Op. 3. The Court rejects this argument by pointing out that, even assuming that co-defendant disparity could be considered under § 3553(a)(6) (once again leaving this question open), the district court considered Hilario’s argument and its refusal to give a lower sentence on this basis was not an abuse of discretion. Op. 3-4. This was especially so given that Hilario’s argument was “wholly speculative” and not based on any facts in the record. Id.
Readers are welcome to suggest in the “Comment” section what this Blog has missed.