Case: 14-13291   Date Filed: 02/09/2015   Page: 1 of 3


                                                        [DO NOT PUBLISH]



            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                      ________________________

                            No. 14-13291
                        Non-Argument Calendar
                      ________________________

               D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00398-WCO-ECS-1



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                     Plaintiff – Appellee,

                                 versus

JULIO RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ,

                                                     Defendant – Appellant.


                      ________________________

               Appeal from the United States District Court
                  for the Northern District of Georgia
                     ________________________

                            (February 9, 2015)

Before HULL, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
                 Case: 14-13291       Date Filed: 02/09/2015        Page: 2 of 3


       Julio Ramirez-Ramirez (“Ramirez”) appeals his sentence of 24 months’

imprisonment, imposed after the revocation of his supervised release pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Ramirez raises two issues on appeal. First, he argues his

sentence was procedurally unreasonable because it exceeded the statutory

maximum sentence available upon revocation of a class E felony, and his original

indictment failed to allege the facts necessary to support a conviction for a class C

felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Second, he contends his sentence was substantively

unreasonable because it was excessive in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors. Upon review, we affirm. 1

       We conclude Ramirez’s claim for procedural unreasonableness fails because

a defendant facing incarceration upon the revocation of supervised release may not

challenge the validity of his original sentence during the revocation proceedings.

See United States v. White, 

, 1316 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[A] defendant

may not challenge, for the first time on appeal from the revocation of supervised

release, his sentence for the underlying offense.”); United States v. Almand, 

, 317 (11th Cir. 1993) (“A sentence is presumed valid until vacated under

[28 U.S.C.] § 2255.”).



       1
           We review Ramirez’s procedural unreasonableness claim for plain error because he did
not raise it in district court. United States v. Vandergrift, 

, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014).
We review the sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release for reasonableness,

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, Gall v. United States, 

, 41
(2007).
                                                 2
               Case: 14-13291     Date Filed: 02/09/2015    Page: 3 of 3


      We also hold Ramirez’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable

because the district court imposed it after properly considering the relevant 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the need for deterrence. See United States v.

Clay, 

, 743 (11th Cir. 2007) (“The weight to be accorded any given

§ 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district

court . . . .” (quotation omitted)). The district court acted well within its discretion

in fashioning the 24-month sentence.

      For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Ramirez’s sentence.

      AFFIRMED.




                                           3