UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GERMAN DE JESUS VENTURA
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, King, July 18, 2017,
Sentencing- The Fourth Circuit follows the “package” sentence approach. If the sentence for a single count is changed, the entire package is sent back for re-sentencing.

During that period of custody, Ventura had received five disciplinary actions, including one for threatening a BOP officer. Considering Ventura’s behavior during his incarceration — along with his “high-level involvement in this tawdry enterprise [and] his use of violence in an effort to monopolize prostitution” — the court decided to impose a sentence on the lower end of the Guidelines range.
WHAT???

Facts:
Ventura ran a chain of brothels in Annapolis and was looking to expand into Easton, MD and Portsmouth, VA. After a rival brothel-owner was killed and men allegedly working for Ventura “seriously assaulted competitor-pimp Hector Fabian Avila,” Ventura was eventually arrested by Annapolis PD and charged with human trafficking and possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence.
Evidence presented at trial showed that Ventura was in possession of a firearm at one of the brothels and possessed the firearm in relation to the prostitution.
At trial and sentencing, evidence was presented showing that Ventura was violent toward the prostitutes that he forced to work for him, his competitors, and his other employees. Among the evidence produced: one individual had gasoline poured on her door as a warning. A prostitute was beaten with a belt when she refused to have sex with a client. A rival was found murdered after receiving threatening phone calls from numbers associated with Ventura.
Ventura was convicted of several counts related to prostitution and human trafficking as well as possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and sentenced to 420 months.
Ventura appealed and the Fourth Circuit vacated the sentence for the firearm possession charge, since “sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion … is not categorically a crime of violence.” The Fourth Circuit then sent Ventura’s case back for a new sentence.
On re-sentencing, the sentencing court once again imposed a sentence of 420 months. The sentencing court considered the same evidence as well as Ventura’s 5 disciplinary actions while in prison, including one for threatening a prison guard.
Ventura appealed, arguing that he shouldn’t have received the same sentence after one of his convictions was vacated.

Held:
The Fourth Circuit disagreed. Because Ventura was sentenced based on the evidence and not the number of convictions, and because the sentence was at the lower end of the guidelines (360 months to life), the sentence was reasonable.

Resentencing- On a remand for resentencing, the sentencing court may consider the issue of appropriate sentence “de novo” (like new), “entertaining any relevant evidence on that issue that it could have heard at the first hearing.”

Sentencing package doctrine- Under Fourth Circuit rules, when a court of appeals “vacate[s] a sentence and remand[s] for resentencing, the sentence becomes void in its entirety and the district court is free to revisit any rulings it made at the initial sentencing.

Package Doctrine- When a defendant is found guilty on a multicount indictment, there is a strong likelihood that the district court will craft a disposition in which the sentences on the various counts form part of an overall plan,” and that if some counts are vacated, “the judge should be free to review the efficacy of what remains in light of the original plan.”

From the case: In this situation, the district court initially sentenced Ventura to an aggregate of
420 months in prison. On remand, the court resentenced him yet again to an aggregate of
420 months. Put simply, the court did not increase his aggregate term of imprisonment
— it imposed the same term.

Aggregate package approach- a sentence is not problematic so long as “the ultimate sentence for one or more counts does not exceed that given for all counts sentenced at the conclusion of the first trial.”

Sentencing- A sentencing court is allowed to take into account “factual matters not determined by a jury and to increase the sentence in consequence.” This includes conduct “of which a defendant has been acquitted if the conduct has nonetheless been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.”

From the case: The district court was entitled to consider Ventura’s violent conduct and possession of a firearm, despite such conduct and firearm possession being tertiary to his vacated conviction.

Sentencing- A resentencing court is allowed to account for and decrease a sentence based on the
defendant’s rehabilitation

From the Case: the court in Ventura’s resentencing did not act unreasonably in considering
Ventura’s conduct during his incarceration with the BOP.
[T]he district court [is] required to resentence [a defendant] in light of the circumstances as they [stand] at the time of [her] resentencing. This principle applies to mitigating considerations with equal force as it applies to aggravating ones.”