United States v. Miguel Torres-Carras , 319 F. App'x 119 ( 2009 )

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-2-2009
USA v. Miguel Torres-Carras
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-1385
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Miguel Torres-Carras" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1594.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1594
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 08-1385
_____________
USA
v.
MIGUEL TORRES-CARRASCO,
Appellant
On Appeal From the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(No. 1-07-cr-00090-001)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 13, 2009
Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES, and TASHIMA * , Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 2, 2009)
OPINION OF THE COURT
*
The Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Miguel Torres-Carrasco pled guilty to illegally entering the United
States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He appeals his sentence, arguing that
the District Court did not “meaningfully consider” his motion for a downward variance.
We will affirm the sentence imposed by the District Court.
I.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have
jurisdiction to review this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We
review the District Court’s sentence for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128
S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). In reviewing Torres-Carrasco’s sentence, first, we must
determine that the District Court “committed no significant procedural error,” such as
“failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors . . . or failing to adequately explain
the chosen sentence . . . .” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597; see United States v. Smalley, 517 F.3d
208, 214 (3d Cir. 2008). A significant procedural error also includes a district court’s
failure to adequately consider a colorable sentencing argument raised by the parties. See
United States v. Sevilla, 541 F.3d 226, 232 (3d Cir. 2008). If the District Court’s
decision is procedurally sound, we then review the sentence for substantive
reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard, “taking into account the totality of
the circumstances.” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597; see Smalley, 317 F.3d at 214.
In reviewing the sentence imposed by the District Court, while we “do not seek to
2
second guess,” we nevertheless must assure ourselves that the district court has given us
an “explanation . . . sufficient for us to see that the particular circumstances of the case
have been given meaningful consideration within the parameters of § 3553(a),” United
States v. Levinson, 543 F.3d 190, 196 (3d Cir. 2008), and that the District Court made an
“individualized assessment based on the facts presented.” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597;
Levinson, 543 F.3d at 196. In addition, “[t]he sentencing judge should set forth enough
to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a
reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United
States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007).
II.
Torres-Carrasco does not challenge his sentence as being substantively
unreasonable. Rather, he contends that the District Court committed procedural error
because it failed to give “meaningful consideration” to his motion for a downward
variance. We disagree.
At his sentencing, Torres-Carrasco “sought a downward variance on the ground
that he had re-entered the United States for the purpose of earning money to pay for his
mother’s medical expenses.” Appellant Br. at 12. Both Torres-Carrasco’s counsel, as
well as Torres-Carrasco himself, addressed the Court on this issue. For example, Torres-
Carrasco stated: “My mom got sick with diabetes and everything else. I felt I needed to
come here and work and to send money back. All I ask is forgiveness for what I’ve
3
done.” Appendix (App.) 39.
The District Court, in considering Torres-Carrasco’s argument, noted: “You came
back into the United States, although, I do understand you were here to assist your family,
you were here illegally.” App. 42. It also explained: “In considering your family
situation, I’m not going to impose the maximum that I think might be available.” The
court subsequently imposed a 60 month sentence upon Torres-Carrasco, observing that
this sentence would “give you consideration for your family circumstances.” Id.
In sum, the court considered Torres-Carrasco’s argument, then directly responded
to his argument, specifically taking it into account when imposing the sentence. Indeed,
the court was persuaded by the argument and imposed a lower sentence as a result of the
argument. We find that this is sufficient to show that the District Court gave Torres-
Carrasco’s argument “meaningful consideration” and that the sentence is procedurally
reasonable.
III.
We therefore will affirm the sentence of the District Court.
4