RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 23a0059p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > Nos. 21-1434/1466 │ v. │ │ WILLIAM SERRANO DOMENECH (21-1434); ALEJANDRO │ SERRANO DOMENECH (21-1466), │ Defendants-Appellants. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. No. 1:06-cr-00245—Janet T. Neff, District Judge. Decided and Filed: March 31, 2023 Before: MOORE, STRANCH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Elizabeth A. LaCosse, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Marquette, Michigan, for Appellant in 21-1434. Paul L. Nelson, Jasna Tosic, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellant in 21-1466. Hagen W. Frank, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. STRANCH, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which MOORE, J., joined. MURPHY, J. (pp. 9–19), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. _________________ OPINION _________________ JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Brothers Alejandro and William Domenech appeal the district court’s denial of their motions for sentence reductions under the First Step Act. They Nos. 21-1434/1466 United States v. Serrano Domenech, et al. Page 2 argue that the district court failed to consider relevant arguments regarding nonretroactive changes of law and did not provide sufficiently compelling justifications for leaving their sentences intact. We VACATE the district court’s orders and REMAND the case for reassignment and reconsideration under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022), and this opinion. I. BACKGROUND Alejandro and William Domenech1 were indicted on various drug and firearm offenses in 2006. Both were ultimately convicted of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute; possession of marijuana with intent to distribute; possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; and felon in possession of a firearm. Additionally, Alejandro was convicted of possession of counterfeit federal reserve notes. At William’s initial sentencing in 2008, the court calculated a Guidelines range of 140 to 175 months, with a mandatory consecutive term of 60 months. The court sentenced William to 234 months’ imprisonment—the high end of his Guidelines range less one month. The court’s sentencing memorandum cited the dangerousness of the underlying offenses, William’s criminal history, and his need for substance abuse treatment as justifications for its sentence. Alejandro faced greater penalties. Based on prior state convictions for armed robbery and attempted drug trafficking, Alejandro was classified as a career offender, a designation that resulted in a Guidelines range of 360 months to life followed by the mandatory consecutive term of 60 months. The court sentenced Alejandro to the low end of that range, resulting in a sentence of 420 months’ imprisonment. The court cited the dangerousness of the underlying offenses, that Alejandro’s criminal history was “escalating in seriousness,” and his post-arrest behavior at court proceedings as justifications for its sentence. A few years after the brothers were sentenced, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals