## Facts

- Roberto Vasquez grew up as the youngest of 12 children and suffered sexual abuse by an older brother, followed by years of depression and other mental-health struggles.
- Vasquez became addicted to cocaine.
- Vasquez had three children with Ingrid Melendez. After their relationship ended, Vasquez attempted suicide and was hospitalized.
- After his release, Melendez refused to let him see their children. Vasquez threatened Melendez with a knife, was arrested, and placed on probation.
- Vasquez later violated probation by again threatening Melendez and was jailed.
- Vasquez later entered a new relationship, had another child, and helped raise his partner’s child from a prior relationship as his own. For several years he stayed drug-free, worked steadily, and paid child support to Melendez even though she still denied him contact with their children.
- Vasquez eventually relapsed into cocaine use. To support his addiction, he contacted an older brother who was an established drug dealer and began working for him as a low-level street dealer.
- Law enforcement had been surveilling the brother’s operation. Vasquez was arrested along with his brother and others.
- Vasquez attempted to cooperate by providing information about people involved in the drug activity, but the government concluded the information could not be corroborated.
- The United States could have charged Vasquez differently but elected to charge him with a conspiracy offense carrying a five-year mandatory minimum and refused his efforts to resolve the case through a lesser charge.
- At an initial sentencing hearing, the government asked for 60 months (the mandatory minimum). The court asked the prosecutor to reconsider the charging decision in light of Vasquez’s low-level role and the stated aim of harsh federal drug penalties to target leaders. The government declined, and a second sentencing hearing followed.

## Issues

1. Whether the court had authority at sentencing to impose a prison term below the five-year mandatory minimum based on the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Vasquez’s history and limited role.
2. Whether, absent safety-valve eligibility or a government substantial-assistance motion, a district court may sentence below a statutory mandatory minimum.
3. What role, if any, the sentencing court may play when the prosecutor’s charging choice determines that a mandatory minimum applies to a low-level participant.

## Decision

- The court imposed a sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment, applying the statutory mandatory minimum.
- The court stated that it regarded the outcome as driven by the mandatory-minimum framework and the government’s charging choice, not by the court’s view of what would be an appropriate individualized sentence.
- The court concluded it lacked legal power to sentence below the mandatory minimum without an applicable statutory exception such as safety-valve relief or a government motion tied to substantial assistance.

## Legal Principles

- When Congress sets a statutory mandatory minimum for an offense of conviction, the sentencing court must impose at least that minimum unless a statutory exception permits a lower sentence.
- The sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the direction to impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” do not authorize a court to go below a statutory floor.
- A below-minimum sentence typically requires statutory authority, such as safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) or a government motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (often paired with U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1) based on substantial assistance.
- Prosecutors’ charging decisions can control whether a mandatory minimum applies; sentencing courts generally may not revise those charging decisions at sentencing, even when the court views the resulting punishment as disproportionate for a minor participant.

## Conclusion

United States v. Vasquez is a district-court sentencing decision in which the court described Vasquez’s severe childhood trauma, mental-health history, addiction, intermittent rehabilitation, and low-level role in a family-run drug operation, yet still imposed the five-year mandatory minimum because the government’s chosen charge triggered that minimum and no statutory mechanism allowed the court to impose a lower sentence without safety-valve eligibility or a government substantial-assistance motion.


United States v. Vasquez, 2010 WL 1257359 (2010)