U.S. v. VAZQUEZ, 558 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2009)
This was an appeal from a 180 month sentence following a remand. In Vazquez I the appellate court remanded because the 110 month was procedurally unreasonable as it was based on an impermissible factor, which is that the sentencing court disagreed with the application of the career offender provision 4B1.1. In this appeal the defendant argued that the sentencing court should have considered its disagreement with the career offender enhancement the second time. The defendant reasoned that U.S v. Kimbrough, which came out after Vazquez I, now made it permissible for the district court to consider its disagreement with career offender. The Court disagreed. Citing U.S. v. Williams which held the district court could not consider its views on §4B1.1 as a sentencing factor. It found that that Kimbrough was not inconsistent with Williams as §4B1.1 was a result of “direct Congressional expression.”
