United States of America v. Reyes Luis Holguin

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant accused of assaulting and battering a federal officer.



After Reyes Holguin pleaded guilty to assault on a federal officer or employee

involving physical contact, the district court varied upward from his advisory

sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or the

Guidelines), and sentenced him to 48 months in prison. Holguin appeals, arguing

that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Although Holguin's sentence is

18 months higher than the top end of his Guidelines range of 24 to 30 months, the

district court justified its decision to vary upward by considering the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors.



* * *



3

Holguin later pleaded guilty to assaulting a federal officer or employee with

physical contact. The PSR calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 24 to 30

months. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a), 1 the PSR also recommended that the

sentence imposed run consecutive to the sentence Holguin was serving at the time he

committed this offense.



* * *



At sentencing, Holguin reiterated his request for a sentence within the

Guidelines range that would run concurrent with his current sentence. He also

explained that his original intent when he went to see the correctional officer was to

ask for help in getting placed in protective custody or a dropout yard and that he had

no intent to harm anybody. Defense counsel suggested Holguin made the decision to

assault the officer to ensure he would get placed in the SHU. Counsel for the

government accepted defense counsel's explanation about Holguin's intent,

explaining his belief that Holguin's intent was primarily to get a change in

placement, and that assaulting the officer was a means to that end. The government agreed Holguin should receive a within-Guidelines sentence but argued that sentence should run consecutive to his current sentence. The government also mentioned

twice that it would be "very reasonable” for the court to vary upward

Affirmed