United States v. Luis De Santiago , 487 F. App'x 278 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
    File Name: 12a1072n.06
    No. 11-3827
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FILED
    FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT                                 Oct 12, 2012
    DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                            )
    )
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                           )
    )       ON APPEAL FROM THE
    v.                                                   )       UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    )       COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
    LUIS DE AVILA DE SANTIAGO, aka Luis                  )       DISTRICT OF OHIO
    De Avila,                                            )
    )              OPINION
    Defendant-Appellant.                          )
    )
    BEFORE: MERRITT, McKEAGUE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM. Luis De Avila De Santiago, a.k.a. Luis De Avila, appeals the district court’s
    judgment imposing a sentence of thirty-three months of imprisonment.
    De Santiago pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after being deported, in
    violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    . The district court determined that De Santiago’s base offense level was
    eight. The court added eight levels because De Santiago had been deported previously after
    conviction of an aggravated felony.       The court subtracted three levels for acceptance of
    responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of thirteen. Based on the total offense level of
    thirteen and a criminal history category of V, the district court determined that De Santiago’s
    guidelines range of imprisonment was thirty to thirty-seven months. The court sentenced him to
    thirty-three months in prison.
    No. 11-3827
    United States v. De Santiago
    On appeal, De Santiago argues that his sentence was unreasonable in two respects: (1) the
    district court failed to consider that his crime was motivated by the desire to be with his immediate
    family members, who are United States citizens; and (2) the court failed to consider the availability
    of other types of sentences and possible sentencing disparities.
    We review the sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for reasonableness,
    which has both a procedural and a substantive component. United States v. O’Georgia, 
    569 F.3d 281
    , 287 (6th Cir. 2009). When reviewing for procedural unreasonableness, we examine whether the
    district court failed to calculate or improperly calculated the guidelines range, treated the Guidelines
    as mandatory, failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous
    facts, or failed to explain the sentence adequately. United States v. Warman, 
    578 F.3d 320
    , 350 (6th
    Cir. 2009). “A sentence may be substantively unreasonable if the district court selects the sentence
    arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider pertinent [18 U.S.C.]
    § 3553(a) factors or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States
    v. Vowell, 
    516 F.3d 503
    , 510 (6th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). We
    apply a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness to a within-Guidelines sentence. See
    Warman, 
    578 F.3d at 351
    .
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing De Santiago’s sentence. The record
    does not support De Santiago’s assertion that the district court failed to give proper weight to his
    personal circumstances. Before imposing the sentence, the district court recognized De Santiago’s
    difficult family situation, but considered it in light of his three previous deportations, at least two of
    which occurred after the commission of a serious felony. The court also discussed the § 3553(a)
    factors, including the need for general and specific deterrence and the need to punish De Santiago
    -2-
    No. 11-3827
    United States v. De Santiago
    for his actions. Further, given the straightforward nature of the case and the imposition of a within-
    Guidelines sentence, the district court was not required to explicitly address the availability of other
    types of sentences or possible sentencing disparities where the record shows the court listened to
    each argument, was aware of the defendant’s circumstances, and took them into account. See Rita
    v. United States, 
    551 U.S. 338
    , 356-57 (2007); United States v. Duane, 
    533 F.3d 441
    , 451-52 (6th
    Cir. 2008).
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s sentence.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-3827

Citation Numbers: 487 F. App'x 278

Judges: Merritt, McKeague, Stranch

Filed Date: 10/12/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024