United States of America v. Juan Oquendo

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2246
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JUAN OQUENDO
Appellant
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 1-08-cr-00363-001)
District Judge: The Honorable William W. Caldwell
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 20, 2010
BEFORE: FUENTES, HARDIMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 2, 2010)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________

-- 1 of 3 --

2
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Since this opinion is wholly without precedential value we write solely for the
benefit of the parties, who are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case,
in order to explain why we will affirm.
While Oquendo was serving a sentence in a state prison, he sent a letter to a
federal judge threatening to kill him. He pleaded guilty to threatening a United States
official with intent to impede the performance of his duties in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§115(a)(1)(B). The District Court sentenced him to 77 months in prison, the bottom-end
of the career offender guideline range. The District Court also sentenced him to two
years of supervised release and assessed him $100.
Oquendo appeals his sentence, claiming that the District Court failed to
meaningfully consider relevant factors under 18 USC §3553(a). We disagree. The
premise of Oquendo’s argument is that the District Court must discuss, on the record,
each factor enumerated in Section 3553(a). In this vein, he asserts that the District Court
failed to consider his childhood abuse or his mental health issues in sentencing him.
None of these issues were explicitly raised by counsel at sentencing as a basis for either a
variance or a downward departure. Nonetheless, our review of the record makes it clear
that his tragic history was detailed in the presentence report. Based upon the comments
of the District Court at sentencing, which specifically referred to both his history and his
need for mental health care, we are satisfied that the District Court knew of these facts

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and gave appropriate, reasonable attention to them. United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d
558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009).
Similarly, Oquendo’s assertions that the District Court gave cursory review to
issues that were explicitly raised as bases for mitigation of the sentence also fall flat.
First, we find it patently absurd to attempt to portray a letter making multiple, explicit
threats of death as something less than a crime of violence. Second, the court plainly
referenced Oquendo’s long criminal history, which included juvenile offenses.
Nonetheless, the record makes clear that his adult criminal history, by itself, is more than
sufficient to categorize Oquendo as a career offender. Finally, Oquendo asserts that the
District Court ignored his request for leniency, which was based upon the combined
length of his prior sentence and a sentence within the career offender guideline range.
The record reflects that the District Court considered the severity of the sentence, but
found that it was justified for numerous reasons, including deterrence against a
continuation of an entrenched pattern of criminal conduct. We note that the District
Court did evince some sensitivity to this issue by sentencing Oquendo to the low end of
the career offender guideline range.
For all of these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment of conviction
and sentence.

-- 3 of 3 --