Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph VASQUEZ, Jr., aka Fat Joe, aka Joe Vasquez, aka Joseph Charles Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Joseph Vasquez, Jr., appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 320-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Vasquez contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it does not adequately account for his rehabilitative efforts and because it creates an unwarranted disparity with a co-defendant. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The record makes clear that the court accounted for Vasquez's rehabilitation efforts by granting a downward variance, but concluded that a further variance was not warranted because of the role Vasquez played in the drug conspiracy and his previous convictions for drug trafficking. Contrary to Vasquez's argument, the court conducted an individualized assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of those factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Moreover, the alleged sentencing disparity is not unwarranted because Vasquez is not similarly situated to his co-defendant. See United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939, 949 (9th Cir. 2014).
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-10013
Decided: July 26, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)