United States v. Pedro Fernandez-De Campa ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •            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    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-12673

Filed Date: 4/16/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/16/2020