United States v. Gustavo Villa-Maldonado , 445 F. App'x 903 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 11-1696
    ___________
    United States of America,              *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,      *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * District of Minnesota.
    Gustavo Villa-Maldonado, also          *
    known as Gustavo Angel Garza,          * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Defendant - Appellant.     *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 12, 2011
    Filed: December 30, 2011
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Gustavo Villa-Maldonado, a Mexican citizen, pled guilty to reentering the
    United States illegally after deportation in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a),(b)(2). The
    district court1 sentenced him to 37 months, the bottom of his guideline range. Villa-
    Maldonado appeals, arguing that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We
    affirm.
    1
    The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota.
    Villa-Maldonado pled guilty to the current offense after he was apprehended
    in Minnesota in June 2010. In a written plea agreement he stipulated that he had been
    removed from the United States after a felony conviction for sale of a controlled
    substance and had then reentered without permission.
    At sentencing Villa-Maldonado requested a below guideline sentence. He
    presented a video featuring family and friends, a letter from his wife, photographs of
    himself with his family, a sentencing memorandum, and oral arguments. Villa-
    Maldonado argued that mitigating factors in his case warranted a downward variance.
    He explained how following his deportation after serving a prior illegal reentry
    sentence, he moved his family to Mexico despite safety concerns stemming from drug
    cartel violence in his region of Mexico. When his wife became pregnant and
    complications developed, he sent his family back to Minnesota but he opted not to
    break the law and stayed in Mexico. He asserted that he only committed the instant
    offense after learning that his wife was unable to support the family. He contended
    that since his son is now old enough to work, his motivation for returning illegally
    again has been removed.
    The district court acknowledged that it was a "very difficult case" but rejected
    the appellant's arguments for a variance and imposed a term of 37 months, the bottom
    of his guideline range of 37 – 46 months. The court stated that it had "carefully
    reviewed" the presentence investigation report and the materials submitted by Villa-
    Maldonado, considered all of the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors, and determined that the
    sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the statute's
    purposes.
    Villa-Maldonado appeals, arguing that his sentence is substantively
    unreasonable and that he should have been granted a downward variance. He
    contends that the district court's assessment of what was adequate deterrence was an
    abuse of discretion, since he had been "significantly deterred" by his prior illegal
    -2-
    reentry sentence and only came back "when he was faced with the most difficult of
    personal circumstances."
    Since Villa-Maldonado does not argue that the district court committed a
    procedural error, we "move directly to review the substantive reasonableness of his
    sentence." United States v. O'Connor, 
    567 F.3d 395
    , 397 (8th Cir. 2009). This
    review is under a "deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." Gall v. United States,
    
    552 U.S. 38
    , 41 (2007). A district court abuses its discretion "when it fails to
    consider a relevant and significant factor, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or
    improper factor, or considers the appropriate factors but commits clear error of
    judgment in weighing those factors." United States v. Miner, 
    544 F.3d 930
    , 932 (8th
    Cir. 2008). Where the district court's sentence is within the guideline range, it is
    accorded a "presumption of substantive reasonableness" on appeal. United States v.
    Robinson, 
    516 F.3d 716
    , 717 (8th Cir. 2008).
    The record shows that the district court considered all of the § 3553(a) factors,
    including the appellant's personal history and characteristics, in imposing a sentence
    at the bottom of the guideline range. It noted that it was a "very difficult case,"
    expressed "great sympathy" for Villa-Maldonado and his family, and stated that the
    appellant's motives for reentering the United States were "honorable." The court also
    stated that Villa-Maldonado had been "a good husband and father" and had "worked
    hard at honest jobs" since his most recent illegal reentry. The court recognized,
    however, that "there are millions of people who would like to live in the United
    States" and most of them, "unlike Mr. Villa, have never sold illegal drugs in this
    country or otherwise broken the laws of this country." Noting the appellant's prior
    30 month sentence for illegal reentry, the court concluded that only a higher sentence
    would be sufficient to serve the purposes of specific and general deterrence, to
    promote respect for the immigration laws, and to avoid unwarranted sentencing
    disparities.
    -3-
    We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
    Villa-Maldonado to 37 months, the bottom of his guideline range. The district court
    has "wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some factors
    greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence." United States v.
    Bridges, 
    569 F.3d 374
    , 379 (8th Cir. 2009). The court carefully considered the
    appellant's arguments for a variance but concluded that a 37 month sentence was
    sufficient but not greater than necessary to serve the purposes of § 3553(a). The
    appellant's sentence is not substantively unreasonable.
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-1696

Citation Numbers: 445 F. App'x 903

Judges: Loken, Murphy, Per Curiam, Shepherd

Filed Date: 12/30/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024