United States v. Eber Altube-Fuentes ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 23, 2008
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 07-13336
CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-20109-CR-DLG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EBER ALTUBE-FUENTES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(January 23, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eber Altube-Fuentes appeals his sentence of 71 months of imprisonment
following a plea of guilty to illegal reentry following a felony conviction. See 8
U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2). Altube-Fuentes argues that his sentence, which is within
the guideline range of 57 to 71 months, is unreasonable because it is more severe
than necessary to fulfill the statutory goals of the Sentencing Reform Act. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). He argues that the district court failed to consider adequately his
mitigating factors and relied too heavily on the single factor of his repeated illegal
entry into the United States. We disagree and affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d
784, 785 (11th Cir. 2005), which is “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard,”
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 598 (2007). We “must first ensure that the
district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate
(or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as
mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall,
128 S. Ct. at 597. We then “consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. “[W]hen the district
court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, we ordinarily will
expect that choice to be a reasonable one.” Talley, 431 F.3d at 788.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. The district court sentenced
2
Altube-Fuentes after careful consideration of Altube-Fuentes’s arguments in favor
of mitigation, the advisory sentencing Guidelines, and the sentencing factors of
section 3553(a). The district court stated that Altube-Fuentes’s criminal history
and repeated reentry after deportation established that “Mr. Altube, for whatever
reason, doesn’t seem to get the message that he is not authorized to be in the
country.” We have consistently concluded that recidivism is not only a proper
reason to increase a sentence, but the most ubiquitous reason. See United States v.
Burge, 407 F.3d 1183, 1188 (11th Cir. 2005). Altube-Fuentes’s sentence within
the advisory guidelines range was reasonable.
Altube-Fuentes’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
3