United States v. Manuel Saldivar

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-13314 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar MARCH 16, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-00091-MHS-CCH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MANUEL SALDIVAR,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 16, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, BLACK and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Saldivar appeals his 60-month, below-Guideline sentence imposed
following his conviction for reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2). Saldivar contends the district court abused its discretion by
imposing a sentence greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Specifically, he claims his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the Guideline range of 77-96 months’ imprisonment is too high, and the
district court failed to take into account his cultural assimilation in this country and
his age and immaturity when he committed the majority of his criminal offenses.
After review, we affirm Saldivar’s sentence.1
The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Saldivar to 60
months’ imprisonment. The district court agreed the Guideline range of 77 to 96
months, with a statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment, was unfairly high
and imposed a downward variance. Further, the record clearly shows the court
considered the § 3553(a) factors in imposing Saldivar’s sentence. The court
specifically commented on the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
history and characteristics of Saldivar, including his criminal history, problems
with alcohol, and reasons for returning to the United States. Accordingly, we
affirm Saldivar’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
1
We review the sentence, whether inside or outside the guideline range, under an abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007). A party challenging a sentence has
the burden of establishing the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the record and the
§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
2