United States v. Carlos David Garcia-Rivera , 336 F. App'x 864 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-15237 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 12, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-00059-CR-CC-1-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS DAVID GARCIA-RIVERA,
a.k.a. Lechon,
a.k.a. Gordo,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(June 12, 2009)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos David Garcia-Rivera appeals his 18-month sentence for escaping
from federal custody, his conviction being pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 751.
Garcia-Rivera argues that, while the mechanics used by the district court to
impose his sentence were correct, the resulting sentence was unreasonable, and the
fact that his sentence was within the Guidelines range did not make it reasonable.
Garcia-Rivera argues that a review of the § 3553 factors as they apply to his
situation shows that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because: (1) the
nature of his offense was non-violent, and he did not commit any new offenses
while out of custody but instead worked; (2) he was originally in custody for a
drug offense committed in order to pay for his father’s funeral; (3) imposing the
lower sentence would not have had a diminished impact on him or other inmates at
the camp; (4) a reasonable person would believe that being sentenced to additional
time, even a year, for escape would have a deterrent effect; and (5) his criminal
history gave no indication that the public needed to be protected from him due to a
risk of violence as none of his convictions were for violent offenses.
We review the final sentence imposed by the district court for
reasonableness. United States v. Agbai, 497 F.3d 1226, 1229 (11th Cir. 2007). The
Supreme Court has clarified that the reasonableness standard means review of
sentences for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. __, 128 S. Ct.
2
586, 597 (2007).
The district court must impose a sentence that is both procedurally and
substantively reasonable. Id. If there are no procedural errors, we consider the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. Id. Such review entails determining whether the district court erred in
finding that the sentence is supported by the § 3553(a) factors. Id. at 600.
Reasonableness review is deferential, there is a “range of reasonable sentences
from which the district court may choose,” and “the party who challenges the
sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the
light of both that record and the factors in section 3553(a).” United States v.
Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). Although we do not apply a
presumption of reasonableness, we will ordinarily expect a sentence within the
Guidelines range to be reasonable. Id.The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the
offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect
the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense; (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need to protect the
public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational
training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the Guidelines
3
range; (8) the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the
need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide
restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The district court gave Garcia-Rivera a sentence at the low end of the
applicable Guidelines range for escaping from federal custody. The district court
noted that a sentence under the Guidelines range and a sentence under the §
3553(a) factors would be essentially the same. Based on seriousness of the
offense, Garcia-Rivera’s criminal history, and the rest of the § 3553(a) factors, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a sentence at the low
end of the Guidelines range was reasonable.
We conclude that, because the district court properly considered the
§ 3553(a) factors, the advisory Guidelines range, the Presentence Investigation
Report, and the parties’ arguments as to an appropriate sentence, and because the
district court committed no procedural errors and imposed a reasonable sentence,
the district court did not err in imposing an 18-month sentence. Garcia-Rivera’s
sentence is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
4