Case: 18-13180 Date Filed: 04/09/2019 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-13180
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20736-DMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIO RAPALO-SARMIENTO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 9, 2019)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-13180 Date Filed: 04/09/2019 Page: 2 of 6
Mario Rapalo-Sarmiento appeals the substantive reasonableness of his
18-month sentence imposed after he was convicted of illegal reentry after removal
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues the district court failed to consider
and properly weigh threats and violence he experienced at the hands of MS-13, a
prominent gang in Honduras, that prompted him to illegally enter, reenter, and
commit crimes in the United States. After careful review, we affirm.
I.
Rapalo-Sarmiento is a native and citizen of Honduras. In 1998, he illegally
entered the United States and, in 2003, was convicted of possession or purchase of
narcotics in California. He was removed twice from the United States, once in
May 2003 and again March 2004. After returning a third time, Rapalo-Sarmiento
was arrested on August 2015 in Florida on charges of cocaine trafficking and
money laundering. He was found guilty of these charges and sentenced to three
years in Florida state prison. He was released on May 1, 2018. Federal authorities
then arrested Rapalo-Sarmiento on May 21, 2018 and charged him with one count
of illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2).
Rapalo-Sarmiento pled guilty to the charge of illegal reentry after removal, and the
modified sentencing report recommended a sentence of 15 to 21 months based on
the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
2
Case: 18-13180 Date Filed: 04/09/2019 Page: 3 of 6
At sentencing, Rapalo-Sarmiento moved for a downward variance to time
served—approximately two months. He argued the district court should vary
downward because his previous drug-related offenses and illegal entry and reentry
into the United States were caused by violence and duress he experienced by MS-
13. He explained he first entered the United States illegally to escape MS-13 after
they shot him in the foot and leg as punishment for refusing to join. Once he came
to the United States, Rapalo-Sarmiento committed a drug offense at the behest of
MS-13 members in California. He informed the district court that after he was
removed to Honduras, members of MS-13 “entered his home, held him at
gunpoint, removed his clothing and belongings from him, and threatened to kill
him.” He proffered to the district court an untranslated, uncertified record
corroborating his account of the attack after his removal. The district court did not
make the document part of the sentencing record. Because of this attack, Rapalo-
Sarmiento says he illegally returned to the United States. He explained to the
district court that his 2015 offense occurred only because MS-13 members who
were on the “lookout for him.” While serving his prison sentence for his 2015
conviction, members of MS-13 stabbed him five times “for leaving [Honduras].”
After hearing Rapalo-Sarmiento’s argument and the government’s rebuttal,
the district court imposed a sentence of 18-months imprisonment. In reaching its
determination, the district court stated it was “apparent . . . that Mr. Rapalo-
3
Case: 18-13180 Date Filed: 04/09/2019 Page: 4 of 6
Sarmiento ha[d] faced difficulties in his home county and that perhaps it followed
him here” to the United States. But the district court also noted Rapalo-Sarmiento
had two previous narcotics convictions in the United States and, as a result, a
sentence “within the guideline range [was] appropriate.” Rapalo-Sarmiento now
appeals his 18-months sentence, arguing that it was substantively unreasonable in
light of the context of his illegal reentry and criminal history.
II.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 41,
128 S. Ct.
586, 591 (2007). The district must consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), which include, in relevant part, the “nature and circumstances of the
offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant” when determining a
reasonable sentence. United States v. Irey,
612 F.3d 1160, 1198 (11th Cir. 2010)
(en banc) (quotation marks omitted). “A district court abuses its discretion when it
(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due significant weight,
(2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a
clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.”
Id. at 1189 (quotation
marks omitted). “The party challenging a sentence has the burden of showing that
the sentence is unreasonable in light of the entire record, the § 3553(a) factors, and
4
Case: 18-13180 Date Filed: 04/09/2019 Page: 5 of 6
the substantial deference afforded sentencing courts.” United States v. Rosales-
Bruno,
789 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015).
III.
Rapalo-Sarmiento argues the district court abused its discretion because his
sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the purpose of § 3553(a). He
contends the district court failed to consider and “accord proper weight to the
threats of violence that animated his entries into the United States and the coercion
underlying his commission of offenses while present in the United States.”
Rapalo-Sarmiento’s argument is premised on the language found in
§ 3553(a), which states “[t]he court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not
greater than necessary” to achieve the statute’s purposes. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2) (listing permissible considerations in fashioning a sentence). This
Court has interpreted this language to require sentences that are “not too short and
not too long.” See
Irey, 612 F.3d at 1197. This Court has also held how much
weight each § 3553(a) factor receives “is a matter committed to the sound
discretion of the district court.” United States v. Kuhlman,
711 F.3d 1321, 1327
(11th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted). As a result, this Court cannot
substitute its judgment for that of the district court in weighing the relevant
§ 3553(a) factors.
Id. “[S]ignificant reliance on a single factor does not
necessarily render a sentence unreasonable.”
Id.
5
Case: 18-13180 Date Filed: 04/09/2019 Page: 6 of 6
The district court considered Rapalo-Sarmiento’s circumstances and the
context of his criminal history. Although the district court did not make the
Honduran document part of the sentencing record, it still considered the relevant
context for his crimes. Indeed, the district court acknowledged that Rapalo-
Sarmiento faced “difficulties” in Honduras that “perhaps . . . followed him” to the
United States.
Balancing the circumstances of Rapalo-Sarmiento’s crimes and background
with the nature of his narcotics offenses, the district court found that a sentence
within the guideline range was appropriate. While the district court may have
weighted his two narcotics offenses significantly more than the context of his
offenses, we cannot say this amounted to an abuse of discretion. See
Kuhlman,
711 F.3d at 1327. We therefore hold that Rapalo-Sarmiento’s sentence was
substantively reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
6
