United States v. Miguel Chavez-Villanueva

Case: 16-15033 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15033
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:16-cr-14013-RLR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL CHAVEZ-VILLANUEVA,
a.k.a. Miguel Angel Chavez-Villanueva,
a.k.a. Miguel Anjel Chavez,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 3, 2017)
Before MARCUS, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-15033 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 2 of 6
Miguel Chavez-Villanueva, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals his 25-
month sentence of imprisonment after pleading guilty to one count of unlawful
reentry into the United States after having been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(1). On appeal, Chavez-Villanueva argues that his sentence, imposed
within the advisory guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable because his
criminal history category of V substantially over-represented the seriousness his
criminal history. He contends that he is not comparable to the typical offender in
category V, because none of his prior convictions involved violent crimes, drug
offenses, or other serious criminal conduct, so the court’s reliance on the advisory
guideline range produced by that category constituted a clear error of judgment.
After careful review, we affirm.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, which “merely asks whether the
trial court abused its discretion.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007).
Normally, we examine both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Here, Chavez-Villanueva
challenges only the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. We examine
whether the sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888, 892 (11th Cir. 2014).
2
Case: 16-15033 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 3 of 6
At sentencing, the district court is tasked with imposing a sentence
“sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes” listed in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). These purposes include the need for the sentence to reflect
the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just
punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from the
defendant’s future criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The district court
must also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and
characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the applicable
guidelines range, the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission,
the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide
restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7).
The court must consider all of the § 3553(a) factors, but it may, in its
discretion, give greater weight to some factors over others. United States v.
Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015). Moreover, “[i]n assigning
weight to the § 3553(a) factors as part of the weighing process, a court may (and
should) consider individualized, particularized, specific facts and not merely the
guidelines label that can be put on the facts.” Id. at 1260.
Our review of the district court’s choice of sentence is deferential. Id. at
1254–55. Nevertheless, a sentencing court can abuse its considerable discretion by
(1) failing to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due significant
3
Case: 16-15033 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 4 of 6
weight; (2) giving significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3)
committing a clear error of judgment in weighing the proper factors. United States
v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). A district court’s
unjustified reliance on any one § 3553(a) factor may be indicative of an
unreasonable sentence. United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir.
2006). The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of demonstrating that
the sentence is unreasonable “in light of the entire record, the § 3553(a) factors,
and the substantial deference afforded to sentencing courts.” Rosales-Bruno, 789
F.3d at 1256.
Here, Chavez-Villanueva has not shown that his 25-month sentence is
substantively unreasonable. The record clearly shows that the district court
accounted for the fact that Chavez-Villanueva’s criminal history was not violent
and was of a different type than those based on drug and gun convictions. Still, the
court found, and we agree, that his criminal history was “significant.”
At the time of sentencing, Chavez-Villanueva had seven prior convictions
for illegal reentry. And despite facing escalating punishments for illegally
reentering the United States, starting from probation in 1999 and progressing to 18
months of imprisonment in 2010, Chavez-Villanueva continued to violate both the
law and the conditions of his supervised release or probation. Indeed, five of these
reentries resulted in the revocation of either probation or supervised release,
4
Case: 16-15033 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 5 of 6
triggering additional terms of imprisonment. Consequently, Chavez-Villanueva’s
criminal history, despite not being violent, demonstrated a compelling need for the
sentence to promote deterrence and respect for the law. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(A), (B).
Chavez-Villanueva argues that he should not be found comparable to other
offenders in criminal-history category V because, in most of instances when he
illegally reentered the United States, he “was apprehended immediately after
wading across the Rio Grande river.” However, the majority of these instances did
not score criminal history points, so they did not factor into his criminal-history
category. In fact, the presentence investigation report (“PSR”) indicates that, of
the five prior convictions based on his immediate arrest at the border, just two of
these convictions scored any criminal-history points. Moreover, when Chavez-
Villanueva managed to make it farther inland, he violated other laws and put others
in danger. According to the PSR, he had two prior convictions for driving without
a valid driver’s license. In 2007, he was convicted of driving under the influence.
And, at the time of sentencing, he had pending charges for driving under the
influence and driving without a license. Thus, Chavez-Villanueva’s criminal
history shows some need to protect the public from his future criminal conduct. 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C).
5
Case: 16-15033 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 6 of 6
In light of totality of the circumstances, particularly Chavez-Villanueva’s
clear disregard for both the laws and courts of the United States, the district court
did not commit a clear error of judgment by concluding that a sentence within his
guideline range was appropriate. See Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1256. A
sentence of 25 months in prison for Chavez-Villanueva’s eighth conviction of
illegal reentry was not outside of the range of reasonable sentences based on the
facts of the case. See Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189–90; Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1251,
1273 (in a reentry case, affirming a 87-month sentence as substantively reasonable
where the guideline range was 21 to 27 months)
For these reasons, we affirm Chavez-Villanueva’s 25-month sentence as
substantively reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
6