Case ID: f-appx_209/html/0567-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio TELLEZ-BOIZO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-3386.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Dec. 18, 2006.
    Thomas W. Szromba, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    William H. Theis, Mary Higgins Judge, Office of the Federal Defender Program, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.
   ORDER

Sergio Tellez-Boizo pleaded guilty to being present in the United States without permission of the Attorney General after his removal to Mexico following a conviction for an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). The district court sentenced him to 77 months’ imprisonment. Thereafter, we ordered a limited remand under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005), so that the district court could tell us whether it would have imposed the same sentence knowing that the sentencing guidelines were only advisory.

After reviewing the appropriate considerations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court has responded that it would not have sentenced Tellez-Boizo differently given Congress’s intent to make reentry a crime and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. Tellez-Boizo did not respond to our invitation to file arguments concerning the appropriate disposition of the appeal in light of the district court’s decision. The government did respond, however, and asks that we affirm.

Tellez-Boizo’s sentence of 77 months’ imprisonment is within the guidelines range of 77 to 96 months. It is therefore presumptively reasonable, United States v. Spano, 447 F.3d 517, 519 (7th Cir.2006); United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005), and Tellez-Boizo has not even attempted to rebut the presumption. Moreover, the district court gave detailed and meaningful consideration to the relevant factors under § 3553(a), which is all it was required to do. See United States v. Gama-Gonzalez, 469 F.3d 1109, 1110 (7th Cir.2006); United States v. Laufle, 433 F.3d 981, 987 (7th Cir.2006).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.