No Requirement to Consider Co-Defendant Sentencing Disparities: Clarifying §3553(a)(6) in United States v. Villalobos

Introduction

The Second Circuit’s summary order in United States v. Villalobos marks an important reaffirmation of district court discretion under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). The appellant, Jerison Rojas Villalobos (“Rojas”), pleaded guilty to multiple conspiracy counts involving mail, wire, bank fraud and money laundering stemming from a lottery‐and‐ransom scheme targeting elderly victims. At sentencing the District Court imposed a 48‐month term—well below the 87–108 month Guidelines range—but longer than some co-conspirators received. On appeal, Rojas argued procedural and substantive unreasonableness, focusing on alleged failures to consider co-defendant disparities, certain risk factors, and to credit his cooperation. The Second Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The court’s concise order upheld three key holdings:

No procedural error in declining to equalize sentences among co-defendants, since §3553(a)(6) mandates consideration of nationwide disparities but not co-defendant disparities. (United States v. Bryant, 976 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2020)).
No plain error in assessing Rojas’s risk of recidivism based on his failure to produce financial documents, continued contact with a co-conspirator father, and ongoing business activities similar to those used for laundering. These factors fall squarely within the permissible §3553(a)(2)(C) “need to protect the public from further crimes.”
No substantive unreasonableness: Rojas received a 48‐month sentence—roughly half the low end of the Guidelines—reflecting the district court’s balancing of his cooperation against the seriousness of scams on vulnerable victims and legitimate deterrence considerations.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Smith, 949 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2020): Defines procedural unreasonableness contours (failure to calculate Guidelines, consider §3553(a) factors, explain a sentence).
United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008): Limits appellate review to plain error when no timely district‐court objection is made.
United States v. Moore, 975 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2020): Lays out the four‐part plain‐error test.
United States v. Bryant, 976 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2020): Clarifies that §3553(a)(6) requires only nationwide parity, not parity among co-defendants.
United States v. Whab, 355 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2004): Holds district courts may consider conduct and associations bearing on recidivism.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007): Endorses “abuse of discretion” standard for substantive reasonableness.
United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012), and Thavaraja, 740 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2014): Stress the heavy burden on defendants challenging substantive reasonableness.
United States v. Messina, 806 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2015): Notes that below‐Guidelines sentences are seldom unreasonable.

Legal Reasoning

The court began by dissecting Rojas’s procedural‐reasonableness challenge under Smith. Because he failed to object at sentencing, the plain‐error framework of Moore applied. His contention—that §3553(a)(6) required equal treatment of co-defendants—was squarely foreclosed by Bryant. Even assuming a disparity analysis was permissible, the district court had explicitly noted Rojas’s managerial role and greater culpability.

On risk and recidivism, Rojas faulted the court for referencing his:

Non-production of employment and asset documents;
Ongoing contacts with his laundering‐involved father;
Continued export business in Costa Rica—an instrumentality of the fraud network.

No binding authority nullified consideration of these factors, and §3553(a)(2)(C) expressly contemplates protecting the public from future criminal conduct.

Substantively, the court applied an abuse-of-discretion review (Gall, Broxmeyer) and noted Rojas’s substantial below-Guidelines sentence already reflected robust credit for cooperation. Weighing:

The vulnerability and suffering of elderly victims;
Magnitude of the aggregate loss (over $3.2 million);
Need for general and specific deterrence;
Lack of genuine post-offense rehabilitation steps;

the district court’s 48-month term fell well within permissible bounds.

Impact

This decision reinforces key principles in federal sentencing:

District courts enjoy broad discretion under §3553(a); appellate courts defer absent clear aberrations.
§3553(a)(6)’s nationwide‐disparity mandate does not extend to co-defendant comparisons.
Courts may consider associations, failure to cooperate fully with probation, and ongoing business ties in assessing recidivism risk.
Substantially below-Guidelines sentences—when properly explained and justified—are rarely disturbed.

Lower courts should take note that summary orders, although non‐precedential, reflect binding interpretations of §3553(a) parameters by the Second Circuit.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 3553(a) Factors: A set of statutory criteria guiding sentencing judges, including offense seriousness, deterrence, protection of the public, and sentencing parity.
Procedural vs. Substantive Unreasonableness: Procedural errors arise from missteps in calculation or explanation; substantive errors occur when the final sentence lies outside the range of reasonable outcomes.
Plain Error Review: An appellate standard applied when a party did not object in district court, requiring proof of a clear mistake affecting fundamental fairness.
Guidelines Range: An advisory imprisonment range calculated from offense and offender characteristics, which judges must “consider” but not blindly follow.

Conclusion

United States v. Villalobos clarifies that sentencing judges are not obligated to explain disparities among co-defendants, so long as they address nationwide sentencing equity under §3553(a)(6). It underscores the broad discretion accorded to district courts in weighing cooperation, recidivism risks, and deterrence. By affirming a substantial below-Guidelines sentence grounded in clear §3553(a) analysis, the Second Circuit has further cemented its deferential posture on substantive reasonableness and provided a roadmap for future sentencing decisions.