Case ID: f-appx_525/html/0913-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel VARGAS-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-16458
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Aug. 8, 2013.
    Uchenna Ekuma-Nkama, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Sally Yates, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard Holcomb, Stephanie A. Kearns, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Daniel Vargas-Ramirez appeals his sentence of 33 months of imprisonment following his plea of guilty to reentering the United States after being deported. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Vargas-Ramirez argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

Vargas-Ramirez’s sentence is reasonable. Vargas-Ramirez had an extensive criminal history that included six prior convictions for driving under the influence, shoplifting, fleeing to elude a police officer, and various traffic offenses. And Vargas-Ramirez had been removed three times from the United States when officers discovered him again driving under the influence. The district court found “[un]aeceptable” that Vargas-Ramirez “ke[pt] entering illegally and disobeying our laws and endangering our citizenry” and reasonably determined that a sentence at the low end of the recommended guidelines range of 33 to 41 months of imprisonment was necessary to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, deter Vargas-Ramirez from future similar conduct, and to protect the public. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Vargas-Ramirez argues that the district court gave undue deference to the sentencing range that resulted from enhancing his offense level by eight points for being deported after committing a shoplifting offense, see United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(l)(c) (Nov.2011), but the district court took into account the enhancement by imposing a sentence at the low end instead of the high end of the sentencing range. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Vargas-Ramirez to a term of 33 months, which was well below the statutory maximum penalty of 20 years of imprisonment.

We AFFIRM Vargas-Ramirez’s sentence.