United States v. Elpidio Paz-Camarena

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-1851
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Elpidio Paz-Camarena
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: November 18, 2013
Filed: December 19, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Elpidio Paz-Camarena appeals his fifty-one month sentence following his plea
of guilty to illegal reentry subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Authorities and immigration officials discovered
Paz-Camarena when he was arrested in June 2012 for assault in Kansas City,
Missouri. The presentence investigation report, accepted by the district court1
without objection from Paz-Camarena, recommended a forty-one to fifty-one month
United States Sentencing Guidelines range. The district court noted the Guidelines
range, discussed the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and focused specifically
on Paz-Camarena's relatively short sentence for the prior felony conviction for
attempted statutory rape. The district court ultimately sentenced Paz-Camarena to the
top of the range, fifty-one months. Paz-Camarena argues on appeal that this sentence
was substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the
statutory goals of sentencing. He also argues that the district court procedurally erred
by not articulating an explanation of the fifty-one month sentence.
We have reviewed the record and find the district court did not abuse its
considerable discretion in sentencing Paz-Camarena to the presumptively reasonable
within-range sentence of fifty-one months. See United States v. Pappas, 715 F.3d
225, 229-30 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review, presumption). Further, as Paz-
Camarena did not object to the district court's alleged procedural error, we review for
plain error and find no error, plain or otherwise. See United States v. Hoffman, 707
F.3d 929, 937 (8th Cir. 2013) (plain error standard of review). In fact, the district
court articulated a rather extensive explanation of its reason for arriving at the fifty-
one month sentence. Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-2-