Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01633/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01633-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Huerta-Rodriguez
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 05-1448/1633

___________

United States of America, *

*

Cross-Appellant/Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Jose Huerta-Rodriguez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant/Cross-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 13, 2005

 Filed: December 16, 2005

___________

Before BYE, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The United States and Jose Huerta-Rodriguez both appeal the district court’s1

sentence of Huerta-Rodriguez. We affirm.

We first note the United States did not brief the questions raised in its crossappeal. Instead, it urges us to affirm the district court’s sentence. We consider

questions not argued to be abandoned and do not consider them. United States v.

Appellate Case: 05-1633 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2005 Entry ID: 1986780
-2-

Reinholz, 245 F.3d 765, 780 (8th Cir. 2001). We therefore only address HuertaRodriguez’s appeal of his sentence of thirty-six months of imprisonment and three

years of supervised release.

Huerta-Rodriguez argues we should remand for resentencing because his

sentence is unreasonable. In determining whether a sentence is reasonable, we

consider how the sentence measures against the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). United States v. Marcussen, 403 F.3d 982, 985 (8th Cir. 2005). “To make

the reasonableness determination, we ask whether the district court abused its

discretion.” United States v. Pizano, 403 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2005).

In the instant case, the district court carefully reviewed the § 3553(a) factors

and, based upon them, imposed a sentence lower than the presumptively reasonable

guideline range. In doing so, the district court considered the overstatement of

Huerta-Rodriguez’s criminal history and noted his prior conduct made him a

troublemaker and perhaps even “undesirable.” The court recognized the Guidelines

seek to prevent undesirable individuals from entering or reentering the United States.

Recognizing the value of specific deterrence, the district court determined a sentence

of thirty-six months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release was just

and would ensure parity among defendants, would properly account for HuertaRodriguez’s background and history, and would reflect the seriousness of the offense

and promote respect for the law. We conclude the district court did not abuse its

discretion and view the sentence as being reasonable.

We therefore affirm the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1633 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2005 Entry ID: 1986780