Filed: Apr. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 15-10163 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 15-10163 _ D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80156-DTKH-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, versus CANDIDO ARMENTA-MENDOZA, a.k.a. Guillermo Salgado, Defendant–Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (April 22, 2016) Before WILSON and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and HALL, * District Judge. PER CURIAM:
Summary: Case: 15-10163 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 15-10163 _ D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80156-DTKH-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, versus CANDIDO ARMENTA-MENDOZA, a.k.a. Guillermo Salgado, Defendant–Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (April 22, 2016) Before WILSON and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and HALL, * District Judge. PER CURIAM: ..
More
Case: 15-10163 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10163
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80156-DTKH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
versus
CANDIDO ARMENTA-MENDOZA,
a.k.a. Guillermo Salgado,
Defendant–Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 22, 2016)
Before WILSON and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and HALL, * District
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States as a
*
Honorable James Randal Hall, United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Georgia, sitting by designation.
Case: 15-10163 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 2 of 7
previously deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The Presentence
Investigation Report yielded a Guidelines range of 8 to 14 months. After
considering the factors set out in 28 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court varied
upward, sentencing Defendant to 36 months’ imprisonment, followed by two years
of supervised release. Defendant appeals his above-Guidelines sentence as both
procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We find no reversible error and
therefore affirm Defendant’s sentence.
I. DISCUSSION
A defendant appealing his sentence bears the burden of showing that the
sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Carpenter, 803 F.3d 1224, 1232 (11th
Cir. 2015). We review “all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or
significantly outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We assess the
reasonableness of a sentence in two steps. “First, we look at whether the district
court committed any significant procedural error, such as miscalculating the
advisory guidelines range, treating the guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous
facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United States v.
Cubero,
754 F.3d 888, 892 (11th Cir. 2014). Second, “we examine whether the
sentence is substantively unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances and
2
Case: 15-10163 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 3 of 7
in light of the § 3553(a) factors.” Id. Ultimately, we may vacate a sentence based
on a variance “only ‘if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the
district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors
by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated
by the facts of the case.’” United States v. Shaw,
560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir.
2009) (quoting United States v. Pugh,
515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008)).
A. Procedural Unreasonableness
A sentencing judge commits no procedural error when he “correctly
calculate[s] the applicable Guidelines range, allow[s] both parties to present
arguments as to what they believe[] the appropriate sentence should be, consider[s]
all the § 3553(a) factors, and thoroughly document[s] his reasoning.” Gall, 552
U.S. at 53; accord United States v. Irey,
612 F.3d 1160, 1185–87 (11th Cir. 2010)
(en banc). Defendant does not argue that the sentencing judge in this case
incorrectly calculated the Guidelines range, refused to allow the parties to fully
argue their position as to the appropriate sentence, failed to consider the § 3553(a)
factors, or neglected to set out his reasoning.
Instead, Defendant contends that the district court erred procedurally when it
upwardly varied on a particular ground without first considering whether an
upward departure would have been warranted in lieu of, or in addition to, an
upward variance. Specifically, in reaching its decision to upwardly vary and in
3
Case: 15-10163 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 4 of 7
fixing the amount of that variance, the district court considered, among other
things, Defendant’s prior drug-trafficking conviction involving 4.1 kilograms of
cocaine. 1 Defendant argues that by not first considering an upward departure
under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 (1),2 the district court “circumvented the required steps of
[G]uidelines calculation” and committed a procedural error. We disagree.
At bottom, Defendant is arguing that when a particular fact is recognized
under the Guidelines as a permissible ground for departure, a sentencing court
must first go through a departure analysis before considering whether to vary on
that particular ground. Defendant cites no persuasive case authority for this
position, however. In a case addressing an analogous issue, we held that a district
court need not consider a Guidelines enhancement for multiple victims before it is
allowed to impose an upward variance based on the impact of the defendant’s
crime on multiple victims. United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258, 1264 (11th
Cir. 2010) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that “the district court should not
have considered that there were multiple victims in its decision to vary upward
because an enhancement under [§] 2B1.1(b)(2)(A) of the sentencing guidelines
was the ‘proper mechanism’ for considering multiple victims”). Moreover,
1
This was not Defendant’s only prior conviction. The Presentence Investigation Report also
shows two convictions for driving under the influence and one for driving while license
suspended.
2
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(1) permits an upward departure when a defendant’s criminal history
category substantially underrepresents the seriousness of his criminal history or the likelihood
that he will commit other crimes.
4
Case: 15-10163 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 5 of 7
although not binding on us, other courts of appeals have held that nothing requires
a district court to consider or impose a departure under § 4A1.3 based on a
defendant’s criminal history before varying from the Guidelines pursuant to
§ 3553(a) based on that history. See United States v. Gutierrez, 635 F.3d 148, 152
(5th Cir. 2011) (“[A] district court is not required to employ the methodology set
forth in § 4A1.3 before imposing a non-Guidelines sentence.”); United States v.
Diosdado-Star,
630 F.3d 359, 362–66 (4th Cir. 2011) (rejecting the defendant’s
argument that “the district court procedurally erred by failing to ‘first address[] a
departure before imposing a purportedly non-guidelines sentence’”).
Likewise, we conclude that the district court here did not commit a
procedural error when it considered Defendant’s prior criminal conduct in its
assessment of the § 3553(a) factors and ultimate decision to upwardly vary. That
the district court did not explore whether it should also upwardly depart under
§ 4A1.3, in lieu of or in addition to its variance, does not alter our conclusion that
no procedural error occurred. Accordingly, we reject Defendant’s argument that
his sentence was procedurally unreasonable.
B. Substantive Unreasonableness
As for substantive unreasonableness, Defendant argues that the district court
impermissibly “fixat[ed] on a single negative factor”: specifically, Defendant’s
criminal history and the amount of cocaine that he had previously trafficked.
5
Case: 15-10163 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 6 of 7
Defendant’s assertion that the court focused on only the above factor is belied by
the transcript from the sentencing hearing. The court acknowledged that it was
“obligated to look at [§ 3553(a)]” and that “Congress has set forth a list of factors
that need to be considered in determining what would be an appropriate sentence.”
(emphasis added). The court further confirmed, “I have looked at all of the factors
in Title 18, Section 3553(a), and it is my view that a sentence above the advisory
guideline range is required.” (emphasis added).
Moreover, the district court expressly considered multiple § 3553(a) factors,
including the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need to protect the
public, the need to deter Defendant and others from reentering the country
illegally, and Defendant’s character and criminal history. In considering
Defendant’s character, the court specifically acknowledged that Defendant had
been a “family man” and that the United States was the only home that Defendant
knew. Thus, to the extent that the district court expressed concern about
Defendant’s prior drug-trafficking conviction, its focus was not “single-minded[].”
United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir. 2006); see also United
States v. Overstreet,
713 F.3d 627, 638 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Although the district
court must evaluate all § 3553(a) factors in imposing a sentence, it is ‘permitted to
attach great weight to one factor over others.’” (quoting
Shaw, 560 F.3d at 1237)).
6
Case: 15-10163 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Page: 7 of 7
Consequently, we are left with no “definite and firm conviction that the
district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a)
factors” when it imposed a 36-month sentence. Shaw, 560 F.3d at 1238.
Defendant’s sentence is therefore not substantively unreasonable.
II. CONCLUSION
Because we conclude that Defendant’s sentence is both procedurally and
substantively reasonable, we AFFIRM.
7
