United States v. J. Huerta-Rodriguez , 158 F. App'x 754 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    Nos. 05-1448/1633
    ___________
    United States of America,            *
    *
    Cross-Appellant/Appellee,      * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                             * District of Nebraska.
    *
    Jose Huerta-Rodriguez,               * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant/Cross-Appellee.      *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 13, 2005
    Filed: December 16, 2005
    ___________
    Before BYE, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    The United States and Jose Huerta-Rodriguez both appeal the district court’s1
    sentence of Huerta-Rodriguez. We affirm.
    We first note the United States did not brief the questions raised in its cross-
    appeal. Instead, it urges us to affirm the district court’s sentence. We consider
    questions not argued to be abandoned and do not consider them. United States v.
    1
    The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the
    District of Nebraska.
    Reinholz, 
    245 F.3d 765
    , 780 (8th Cir. 2001). We therefore only address Huerta-
    Rodriguez’s appeal of his sentence of thirty-six months of imprisonment and three
    years of supervised release.
    Huerta-Rodriguez argues we should remand for resentencing because his
    sentence is unreasonable. In determining whether a sentence is reasonable, we
    consider how the sentence measures against the factors set forth in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a). United States v. Marcussen, 
    403 F.3d 982
    , 985 (8th Cir. 2005). “To make
    the reasonableness determination, we ask whether the district court abused its
    discretion.” United States v. Pizano, 
    403 F.3d 991
    , 995 (8th Cir. 2005).
    In the instant case, the district court carefully reviewed the § 3553(a) factors
    and, based upon them, imposed a sentence lower than the presumptively reasonable
    guideline range. In doing so, the district court considered the overstatement of
    Huerta-Rodriguez’s criminal history and noted his prior conduct made him a
    troublemaker and perhaps even “undesirable.” The court recognized the Guidelines
    seek to prevent undesirable individuals from entering or reentering the United States.
    Recognizing the value of specific deterrence, the district court determined a sentence
    of thirty-six months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release was just
    and would ensure parity among defendants, would properly account for Huerta-
    Rodriguez’s background and history, and would reflect the seriousness of the offense
    and promote respect for the law. We conclude the district court did not abuse its
    discretion and view the sentence as being reasonable.
    We therefore affirm the district court.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-1448, 05-1633

Citation Numbers: 158 F. App'x 754

Judges: Bye, Beam, Gruender

Filed Date: 12/16/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024