United States v. Jose Martinez Santelices

Case: 17-10334 Date Filed: 10/04/2017 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-10334
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20926-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE MARTINEZ SANTELICES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 4, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Martinez de Santelices appeals from his sentence of 18 months’
imprisonment, to be served consecutively to his sentence in a separate criminal
case, which the district court imposed after revoking his supervised release. On
Case: 17-10334 Date Filed: 10/04/2017 Page: 2 of 5
appeal, he argues that the district court failed to explain his sentence adequately, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1). After careful review, we affirm.
We review “de novo the legality of a sentence, including a sentence imposed
pursuant to revocation of a term of supervised release.” United States v. Aimufa,
122 F.3d 1376, 1378 (11th Cir. 1997). The question of whether a district court
complied with § 3553(c)(1) is reviewed de novo, even absent a defense objection
below. United States v. Bonilla, 463 F.3d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 2006). This is
because review focuses exclusively on the court’s actions at sentencing and not on
the defendant’s. United States v. Williams, 438 F.3d 1272, 1274 (11th Cir. 2006).
A district court may, upon finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a
defendant has violated a condition of supervised release, revoke a term of
supervised release, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
(a)(2)(B)-(D), and (a)(4)-(7), and may impose a sentence of imprisonment for the
violation. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Specifically, sentencing courts must consider:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics
of the defendant; (2) the need for deterrence; (3) the need to protect the public; (4)
the need to provide the defendant with educational or vocational training, medical
care, or other correctional treatment; (5) the kinds of sentences available and the
applicable sentencing range; (6) any pertinent policy statements; (7) the need to
2
Case: 17-10334 Date Filed: 10/04/2017 Page: 3 of 5
avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (8) the need to provide restitution to
any victims. See id.; id. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), (a)(4)-(7).
The district court, at sentencing, must state in open court the reasons for its
imposition of a particular sentence, and if the sentence is within the advisory
guideline range “and that range exceeds 24 months, the reason for imposing a
sentence at a particular point within the range.” Id. § 3553(c)(1) (cross-referencing
id. § 3553(a)(4)). The sentencing court should set forth enough to satisfy the
appellate court that it considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis
for exercising its legal decision-making authority. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 356 (2007). If a court fails to comply with § 3553(c)(1), “the sentence is
imposed in violation of law.” United States v. Veteto, 920 F.2d 823, 826 (11th Cir.
1991). But when a case is “conceptually simple” and the record reveals that the
sentencing court considered the evidence and arguments, § 3553 does not require
an extensive explanation. Rita, 551 U.S. at 356-59. “[W]hen a judge decides
simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily
require lengthy explanation. Circumstances may well make clear that the judge
rests his decision upon the Commission’s own reasoning that the Guidelines
sentence is a proper sentence.” Id. at 356-57. The appropriateness of how much to
write and what to say depends on the circumstances of the case, and “[t]he law
leaves much, in this respect, to the judge’s own professional judgment.” Id. at 356.
3
Case: 17-10334 Date Filed: 10/04/2017 Page: 4 of 5
Here, Martinez de Santelices’s within-guideline sentence was procedurally
reasonable. While Martinez de Santelices argues that the district court failed to
explain its chosen sentence adequately, this appeal involves a supervised release
revocation hearing in which he admitted all charged violations of the conditions of
his supervised release. As a result, his case is “conceptually simple” and the
circumstances did not require the district court to provide a lengthy explanation of
its reasons for imposing a within-guideline sentence. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 356-57.
And because the guideline range was 12-18 months’ imprisonment, the district
court was not required to explain why it chose a particular sentence within that
range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1). Regardless, in its brief explanation, the district
court indicated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors in recounting Martinez
de Santelices’s conduct, had considered the arguments of both parties, and had
found a guideline-range sentence to be appropriate. Moreover, the district court
expressly said that it considered that Martinez de Santelices was awaiting
sentencing in his underlying criminal case and found, based on that and the other
factors previously discussed, that an 18-month consecutive sentence for his
supervised release violation was appropriate. This explanation was sufficient to
show that the district court had a “reasoned basis” for its sentencing decision.
Accordingly, Martinez de Santelices cannot show that the sentence is procedurally
unreasonable, and we affirm. See Rita, 551 U.S. at 356.
4
Case: 17-10334 Date Filed: 10/04/2017 Page: 5 of 5
AFFIRMED.
5