Case: 19-12673 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-12673
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:19-cr-00038-MMH-JBT-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PEDRO FERNANDEZ-DE CAMPA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 16, 2020)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-12673 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 2 of 3
Pedro Fernandez-de Campa appeals his sentence of 30 months of
imprisonment following his plea of guilty to reentering the United States illegally.
8 U.S.C. § 1326. Fernandez-de Campa argues that his sentence is procedurally
unreasonable because the district court failed to state the reasons for its chosen
sentence. He also argues that his sentence is unconstitutional because his maximum
statutory sentence was increased based on the fact of a prior conviction that was
not alleged in his indictment or admitted by him. We affirm.
Fernandez-de Campa’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. The explanation
provided by district court, “though brief, was legally sufficient” to establish that it
“considered the parties’ arguments and [had] a reasoned basis” for its chosen
sentence. See Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). The district court
“reviewed . . . [Fernandez-de Campa’s] sentencing memorandum” and “heard from
counsel and from Mr. Fernandez-de Campa” concerning his request for a
downward variance from his recommended guideline range of 30 to 37 months of
imprisonment. The district court considered Fernandez-de Campa’s arguments that
a lenient sentence would account for his difficult childhood, his ongoing support of
his wife and three stepdaughters living in the United States, how deportation was a
“harsh[] consequence” for him due to his age, and how his deportation would deter
other aliens from entering the country illegally. The district court also “reviewed
the presentence report” and considered the prosecutor’s argument that sentencing
2
Case: 19-12673 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 3 of 3
Fernandez-de Campa to 37 months of imprisonment was required to punish him
for reentering the United States illegally a third time after deportation, to deter him
from committing future similar crimes, and to account for his criminal history
score of IV, which included his convictions for conspiring to distribute marijuana,
driving while intoxicated, and petty theft. The district court selected a sentence of
30 months of imprisonment based on “Title 18, United States Code §§ 3551 and
3553 . . . .” The district court stated its reasons for sentencing Fernandez-de Campa
to a term at the low end of his guideline range.
Fernandez-de Campa concedes that his challenge to the constitutionality of
his sentence is foreclosed by precedent. In Almendarez–Torres v. United States,
523 U.S. 224 (1998), the Supreme Court held that a prior conviction “relevant only
to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime” does not have
to be charged in an indictment or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, even
if it increases the defendant’s maximum statutory sentence.
Id. at 228–47.
Almendarez-Torres remains the law until overruled by the Supreme Court, which it
declined to do in Alleyne v. United States,
570 U.S. 99 (2013).
Id. at 111 n.1.
We AFFIRM Fernandez-de Campa’s sentence.
3
