United States v. Juarez-Gonzalez

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPT 22, 2010
No. 10-10218 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00360-JDW-EAJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALEJANDRO JUAREZ-GONZALEZ,
llllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 22, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Alejandro Juarez-Gonzalez pled guilty unconditionally to all
counts of a four-count indictment, which charged him as follows: Count One,
conspiracy to transport fourteen illegal aliens for financial gain, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (a)(1)(A)(v)(1) and (a)(1)(B)(i); Count Two,
transportation of eight illegal aliens for financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §
1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (B)(i); Count Three, transportation of six illegal aliens for
financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (B)(i); Count Four,
illegal re-entry into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The
district court sentenced appellant to concurrent prison terms of 36 months on
Counts One through Three and 24 months on Count Four. He now appeals his
sentences on Counts One through Three.
For those three counts, the Sentencing Guidelines prescribed a period of
incarceration of 18 to 24 months for a defendant, like appellant, with a criminal
history category of III. The court varied upward from this sentencing range based
on the need of the combined sentences to reflect the need of the sentence to satisfy
the statutory sentencing goals of promoting respect for the law, deterring others
from committing the same offenses, and protecting the public from appellant’s
future criminal activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C). In the
court’s view, the 18 to 24 month terms of incarceration the Guidelines provided
were insufficient to satisfy these sentencing goals.
Appellant contends that his sentences on Counts One, Two, and Three are
2
substantively unreasonable.1 In reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, we apply
the abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct.
586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Whether a sentence is reasonable is guided by
the factors set forth by Congress in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Pugh,
515 F.3d 1179, 1188-89 (11th Cir. 2008). A sentence is substantively reasonable
if, under the totality of the circumstances, it achieves the purposes of § 3553(a).
Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1191.
The § 3553(a) factors are: “(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense
and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense; (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need to protect the
public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or
vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the
Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing
Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities; and (10) the
1
Appellant also argues that the prison term the district court imposed is much higher than
the terms the district judges in the Fifth and Ninth Circuits would have imposed. He did not present
this argument to the district court. We therefore do not consider it. United States v. Gilbert, 198
F.3d 1293, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999).
3
need to provide restitution to victims.” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786
(11th Cir. 2005).
In this case, the district court adequately considered the sentencing goals of
§ 3553(a) and concluded that a 36 months’ periods of incarceration were not
greater than necessary to achieve those goals. Appellant’s sentences are
accordingly
AFFIRMED.
4