Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02163/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02163-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juber Nelson Cabrera-Villegas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2163

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District 

* of Minnesota. 

Juber Nelson Cabrera-Villegas, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 15, 2006

Filed: March 20, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM. 

Juber Nelson Cabrera-Villegas pled guilty to unlawful reentry after deportation

following an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). The

district court1

 sentenced him to 57 months imprisonment. Cabrera-Villegas appeals,

asserting that the court erred by failing to recognize its authority to sentence outside

the guidelines and imposed an unreasonable sentence. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 05-2163 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022640
-2-

 Cabrera-Villegas, a citizen of El Salvador who had been granted permanent

resident status in 1990, was deported in 2001 based on convictions for aggravated

felonies. After illegally reentering the United States, he pled guilty to unlawful

reentry after deportation following an aggravated felony. At his initial sentencing

Cabrera-Villegas unsuccessfully moved for a downward departure, arguing that his

criminal history was overstated and citing mitigating factors including his

assimilation. He was sentenced to a term of 57 months, the low end of the range. The

case was later remanded for resentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005). 

At his second sentencing hearing, Cabrera-Villegas argued that 57 months was

not a reasonable sentence given his family circumstances, his related motive for

returning, and the sentencing disparity between a fast track sentence of 37 to 46

months and the 57 month sentence he was given in the District of Minnesota which

does not have a fast track program. The court recognized its authority to depart but

chose not to, finding that all the circumstances fell within the heartland of cases. It

acknowledged the sentencing disparity that results because of the fast track program

but observed that it results from a "deliberate act of Congress." The court concluded

that its sentence was reasonable under the § 3553(a) factors and emphasized that the

case was not so unusual as to justify a departure from the guidelines. 

Cabrera-Villegas asserts that the district court failed to recognize that it could

depart under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0 to address the sentencing disparity created by the fast

track program. He cites a case in which this disparity was one factor leading to a

sentence below the guideline range. United States v. Galvez-Barrios, 355 F.Supp.2d

958, 963 (E.D. Wis. 2005). It is clear, however, that the court here understood its

power to depart but decided not to because the case fell within the heartland and it

recognized the authority of Congress to institute fast track programs. Where a district

court recognizes its authority to depart downward, its discretionary decision not to do

so is unreviewable. See United States v. Frokjer, 415 F.3d 865, 875 (8th Cir. 2005).

Appellate Case: 05-2163 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022640
-3-

Cabrera-Villegas also argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the court

failed to consider sentencing disparity as a mitigating factor and imposed a sentence

which does not promote respect for the law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)(A). Not

only is his sentence presumptively reasonable because it was within the 57 - 71 month

guideline range, see United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005), but

it was at the low point of that range. Furthermore, the court referred to the § 3553(a)

factors and explained why his case failed to justify a departure. Although Congress

emphasized the importance of reducing sentence disparities in the Sentencing Reform

Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3553 et seq., it also later passed the PROTECT Act to

authorize fast track programs in districts overburdened by illegal reentry cases. See

Publ. L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (2003). Congress and the President have

"concluded that the advantages stemming from fast-track programs outweigh their

disadvantages, and that any disparity that results from fast-track programs is not

'unwarranted'", United States v. Sebastian, 436 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting

United States v. Perez-Chavez, No. 2:05-CR-00003PGC, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

9252, at *23 (D. Utah May 16, 2005)), and so directed the United States Sentencing

Commission to "provide for guideline departures in certain judicial districts".

See Sebastian, 436 F.3d at 916. 

After reviewing the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its

discretion in sentencing Cabrera-Villegas and that his sentence is not unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2163 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022640