United States v. Carlos Umansor-Mejia , 600 F. App'x 1018 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 14-1325
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Carlos Alberto Umansor-Mejia
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
    ____________
    Submitted: November 10, 2014
    Filed: May 1, 2015
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Carlos Alberto Umansor-Mejia pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United
    States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The presentence investigation report (PSR)
    recommended a guidelines range of 46 to 57 months' imprisonment. The district
    court1 varied downward and sentenced Umansor-Mejia to 36 months' imprisonment.
    Umansor-Mejia claims his sentence is substantively unreasonable because he was
    entitled to a greater variance. We affirm.
    I
    Umansor-Mejia was born in Honduras. He illegally entered the United States
    in 2001, at the age of 19. He moved to Minnesota, where he lived and worked until
    2004. In 2004, Umansor-Mejia was deported after someone reported a number of
    illegal immigrants living in St. Cloud.
    In 2005, however, Umansor-Mejia again moved to Minnesota. He was arrested
    for drunk driving, but he gave police a false name so he would not again be deported.
    In 2006, Umansor-Mejia pled guilty, under a false name, to third-degree criminal
    sexual conduct. Umansor-Mejia, then 24, had sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old
    victim. Umansor-Mejia was deported a second time in February 2009.
    Umansor-Mejia nevertheless returned to Minnesota. He claims he did so to be
    with his pregnant girlfriend. He joined a church and became a minister. He broke his
    back at work, and in 2012, underwent surgery. While recovering from surgery, his
    probation—part of his sentence for the 2006 conviction—was revoked for failing to
    report his location. Umansor-Mejia's recovery was frustrated while in jail, so he has
    trouble walking and is in constant pain. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    officials soon became aware that he was an illegal alien.
    A grand jury indicted Umansor-Mejia in the present case in May 2013, and he
    pled guilty in July 2013. In the plea agreement, the parties contemplated a base
    1
    The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the
    District of Minnesota.
    -2-
    offense level of 21 and criminal history category III, corresponding to an advisory
    guidelines sentencing range of 46 to 57 months in prison. The PSR also reflected
    these calculations.
    The government sought a within-guidelines sentence. Umansor-Mejia sought
    a downward departure, claiming that the guidelines in these circumstances "double
    count" prior convictions—the base offense level is increased due to the conviction and
    the conviction is used to calculate criminal history points. Umansor-Mejia
    alternatively sought a downward variance due to his troubled past and other
    extenuating circumstances, such as his newfound dedication to Christianity.
    Umansor-Mejia argued that 18 months in prison would be an appropriate sentence.
    The district court granted a variance and sentenced Umansor-Mejia to 36
    months in prison. Umansor-Mejia timely appealed.
    II
    Umansor-Mejia challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. He
    contends that even though the district court granted him a downward variance, the
    sentence the district court imposed was nevertheless greater than necessary to
    accomplish the goals of federal sentencing.
    We review a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United
    States v. Spencer, 
    700 F.3d 317
    , 322 (8th Cir. 2012). Where a defendant challenges
    a sentence which varied downward from the guidelines range, "it is nearly
    inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still
    further." 
    Id. (internal quotation
    omitted). A district court nevertheless abuses its
    discretion when it "fails to consider a relevant and significant factor, gives significant
    weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or . . . commits a clear error of judgment
    in weighing [appropriate] factors." United States v. Miner, 
    544 F.3d 930
    , 932 (8th
    -3-
    Cir. 2008). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the sentence is
    unreasonable. United States v. Bolden, 
    596 F.3d 976
    , 984 (8th Cir. 2010).
    Umansor-Mejia contends that the district court failed to consider his "personal
    transformation"—his dedication to Christianity—during sentencing. Although the
    district court did not specifically address the alleged transformation during sentencing,
    we cannot presume that the district court simply ignored the factor. See United States
    v. Johnson, 
    619 F.3d 910
    , 922 (8th Cir. 2010) ("[T]he district court was aware of [the
    defendant's] arguments, and we therefore presume that the district court considered
    and rejected them."). Umansor-Mejia highlighted this transformation in his
    sentencing memorandum and through various letters submitted to the court.
    Umansor-Mejia also alleges that the district court gave insufficient weight to other
    relevant factors—his alleged difficult childhood, his extraordinary medical condition,
    the undue harshness of the guidelines, and the time he spent in custody prior to
    sentencing. The district court questioned Umansor-Mejia's personal history, noting
    that other court documents told conflicting stories. The district court specifically
    discussed the base-offense-level enhancement stemming from Umansor-Mejia's sexual
    conduct conviction. And when imposing its sentence, the district court mentioned
    many of the mitigating factors in Umansor-Mejia's case. It varied downward "[d]ue
    to [Umansor-Mejia's] health concerns, the fact that [he was] not actively committing
    a crime at the time [he] committed this offense, and the fact that [he has] been in
    custody. . . awaiting resolution in this case."
    The district court weighed proper factors and did so appropriately. We hold
    that the district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Umansor-Mejia to a
    sentence ten months below the bottom of the guidelines range.
    ______________________________
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-1325

Citation Numbers: 600 F. App'x 1018

Judges: Murphy, Melloy, Benton

Filed Date: 5/1/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024