United States v. Niarco Garcia

Case: 14-10225 Date Filed: 07/14/2014 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10225
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:05-cr-20625-JEM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NIARCO GARCIA,
a.k.a. El Flaco,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 14, 2014)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-10225 Date Filed: 07/14/2014 Page: 2 of 5
Niarco Garcia appeals his 24-month guidelines sentence, imposed after the
district court revoked his supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). On
appeal, Garcia argues that the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the
district court provided limited explanation of its reasons for imposing it and made
improper remarks concerning immigration policy and Garcia’s immigration status
during his sentencing hearing.
We review sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release for
reasonableness. United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir.
2006). Reasonableness is reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591, 169 L.Ed.2d
445 (2007). The party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of showing
that the sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378
(11th Cir. 2008).
In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we first ensure that the
sentence was procedurally reasonable, meaning the district court properly
calculated the guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory, considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, did not select a sentence based on clearly erroneous
facts, and adequately explained the chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51,
128 S.Ct. at 597. In its explanation, the district court “should set forth enough to
satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a
2
Case: 14-10225 Date Filed: 07/14/2014 Page: 3 of 5
reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
When a party “presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence,
however, the [district court] will normally go further and explain why [it] has
rejected those arguments.” Id. at 357, 127 S.Ct. at 2468. Nevertheless, such
explanation need not be extensive “[w]here a matter is . . . conceptually simple . . .
and the record makes clear that the sentencing judge considered the evidence and
arguments.” Id. at 359, 127 S.Ct. at 2469.
When revoking a defendant’s term of supervised release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3), the district court is to consider certain § 3553(a) factors to determine
an appropriate sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Specifically, courts are
directed to consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the
history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to deter criminal conduct,
protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal conduct, and provide the
defendant with education or treatment; (3) the applicable guidelines range;
(4) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (5) the need to
avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (6) the need to provide restitution to
victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), (a)(4)-(7). The district court need
not discuss or explicitly state on the record each § 3553(a) factor, and the court’s
acknowledgment that it has considered the § 3553(a) factors and the parties’
3
Case: 14-10225 Date Filed: 07/14/2014 Page: 4 of 5
arguments is sufficient. United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324
(11th Cir. 2008). Even when the district court could “have said more” in its
explanation, we have considered the context and the record to determine what
reasoning underlies the sentencing decision. See United States v. Agbai, 497 F.3d
1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007) (concluding that, given the record, the district court’s
explanation of its within-guidelines sentence was adequate).
We have stated that “a judge may not impose a more severe sentence than he
would have otherwise based on unfounded assumptions regarding an individual’s
immigration status or on his personal views of immigration policy.” United States
v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248, 1253 (11th Cir. 2008). In Velasquez, the
district court sentenced Velasquez to nine months’ imprisonment for violating his
supervised release because it could not comprehend why an immigration judge had
released him on bond. Id. at 1249, 1251-52. We stated that the district court had
imposed Velasquez’s sentence as if it were reviewing and overturning the
immigration judge’s decision. Id. at 1252 n.3. In vacating Velasquez’s sentence,
we explained that the district court had attempted to usurp the role of the executive
branch. Id.The district court’s sentence was not procedurally unreasonable. There was
no indication that the district court was attempting to usurp the role of the
executive branch or that it sentenced Garcia to a higher sentence based on
4
Case: 14-10225 Date Filed: 07/14/2014 Page: 5 of 5
improper immigration concerns. Moreover, the court’s explanation for the
sentence was sufficient, given that Garcia’s case was conceptually simple and that
the court imposed a guidelines sentence after acknowledging the arguments of the
parties.
AFFIRMED.
5