Karen Altagracia Perez v. United States

WHETHER THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COMMITTED ERROR AND VIOLATED THE PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS BY IGNORING DECADES OF THIS COURT’S CONTROLLING PRECEDENT REGARDING A SENTENCING COURT’S BROAD SENTENCING DISCRETION AND THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE CONTROLLING SENTENCING STATUTES, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) AND § 3553(e), THAT ALLOW A DISTRICT COURT IMPOSING CONDIGN SENTENCE THE DISCRETION TO GRANT A VARIANCE BASED ON § 3553(a) FACTORS IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATE OF FEDERAL SENTENCING LAW TO IMPOSE A SENTENCE THAT IS “SUFFICIENT, BUT NOT GREATER THAN NECESSARY” TO REFLECT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE, PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW, ADEQUATELY DETER CRIMINAL CONDUCT, AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, EVEN AFTER GRANTING A GOVERNMENT MOTION RECOGNIZING A DEFENDANTS SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE FILED UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), AND WHETHER THE MERE FACT THAT A MOTION FOR SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE IS FILED AND GRANTED CREATES A SECONDARY MINIMUM MANDATORY LIMITING THE DISTRICT COURT AND ONLY ALLOWING FOR A SENTENCE AT THE BOTTOM OF WHATEVER THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES’ SENTENCING RANGE RESULTS FROM ONLY THE DEFENDANT’S COOPERATION AND COMPLETELY IGNORING ANY OTHER APPLICABLE § 3553(a)(2) FACTORS? PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT The parties to the original proceeding in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and the Eleventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals are the Petitioner Karen Altagracia Pérez, Defendant-Petitioner (hereinafter “Ms. Pérez”) and the Respondent the United States, Plaintiff-Respondent. The Petitioner is not a corporation.