We do not read sentencing colloquies like statutes. See United States v. Orozco-Vasquez, 469 F.3d 1101, 1107 (7th Cir. 2006). And nothing in the sentencing transcript suggests that the court meant to resolve a "fact" dispute-as if the parties had introduced statistical evidence on the backgrounds of the "average" defendant and asked the court to "find" where Collins fit within this picture.
Not everything a sentencing judge says can be labeled a factual finding; much of what is said "consists of observations and assessments that form the basis of the judge's consideration" of the sentencing factors in ยง 3553(a). United States v. Orozco-Vasquez, 469 F.3d 1101, 1107 (7th Cir. 2006). The court made the statement here as it expressed its view that the defendant's past sentences had been too light to deter him from crime, and that he is a menace to society.
A district court must explain, with reference to the 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a) sentencing factors, its choice to sentence the defendant outside the guidelines range; the farther outside the guidelines range the sentence is, the more compelling that explanation must be. See United States v. Orozco-Vasquez, 469 F.3d 1101, 1107 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Valle, 458 F.3d 652, 656 (7th Cir. 2006). But the court need not discuss every factor, so long as it explains its sentencing choice in a manner consistent with ยง 3553(a).
After a jury trial, this is a "nearly insurmountable" hurdle. United States v. Orozco-Vasquez, 469 F.3d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir.2006) (citing United States v. Moore, 425 F.3d 1061, 1072 (7th Cir.2005)). When confronted with a sufficiency challenge, "[w]e do not weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses.
When making this determination, courts "do not weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses." U.S. v. Orozco-Vasquez, 469 F.3d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir., 2006). B. Evidence Common to Multiple Defendants1. Testimony of Orlando Rivera
In making this determination, the Court does not "weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses." United States v. Orozco-Vasquez, 469 F.3d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 2006). The Court finds the evidence in this case more than sufficient to support the convictions.
May 14, 2007. Reported below: 469 F. 3d 1101. Miscellaneous Orders C.A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Johnson's argument runs aground on the truism that "not every fact-based statement a judge makes at sentencing is a 'factual finding.'" United States v. Orozco-Vasquez, 469 F.3d 1101, 1107 (7th Cir. 2006). "There is a difference between formal factual findings and judicial observations that explain conclusions about sentencing factors."
When we are confronted with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to maintain a conviction, "[w]e do not weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses." United States v. Orozco-Vasquez, 469 F.3d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 2006). "Instead, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the government and reverse only when there is no evidence, no matter how it is weighed, from which a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Gang membership is a factor that courts may consider when addressing a defendant's personal characteristics, see 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a)(1); United Statesv. Love, 680 F.3d 994, 1000 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Orozco-Vasquez, 469 F.3d 1101, 1105 (7th Cir. 2006), and here the court reasonably explained that Moran-Vazquez's ties to a gang involved in narcotics trafficking and human smuggling were relevant in showing a disrespect for the law and higher likelihood of reoffending. A within-guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable, see United States v. Marin-Castano, 688 F.3d 899, 902 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Garcia-Ugarte, 688 F.3d 314, 316 (7th Cir. 2012), and Moran-Vazquez has not rebutted that presumption.