Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11625/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11625-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Salvador Ortiz-Merino
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-11625

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80220-KLR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SALVADOR ORTIZ-MERINO, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(September 30, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

After Salvador Ortiz-Merino pled guilty to illegal reentry by a deported 

alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), the district court sentenced him to 12

months’ imprisonment, an upward variance from the advisory guideline range of 0 

USCA11 Case: 15-11625 Date Filed: 09/30/2015 Page: 1 of 6
2

to 6 months. On appeal, Ortiz-Merino argues that his sentence is procedurally and

substantively unreasonable. After thorough review, we affirm.

We review the sentence a district court imposes for “reasonableness,” which 

“merely asks whether the trial court abused its discretion.” United States v. Pugh, 

515 F.3d 1179, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 

351 (2007)). The party challenging the sentence bears the burden to show it is 

unreasonable. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). 

In reviewing sentences for reasonableness, we typically perform two steps. 

Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1190. First, we “‘ensure that the district court committed no 

significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) 

the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 

§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing 

to adequately explain the chosen sentence -- including an explanation for any 

deviation from the Guidelines range.’” Id. (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007)).1 The district court is not required to explicitly state that it 

considered the § 3553(a) factors, as long as the court’s comments demonstrate that 

 1 The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the 

history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the 

seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the 

offense; (3) the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence; (4) the need to 

protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with educational or vocational training 

or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) the 

pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwanted 

sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

USCA11 Case: 15-11625 Date Filed: 09/30/2015 Page: 2 of 6
3

it considered the factors when imposing sentence. United States v. Dorman, 488 

F.3d 936, 944 (11th Cir. 2007). 

If we conclude that the district court did not procedurally err, we consider 

the “‘substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard,’” based on the “‘totality of the circumstances.’” Pugh, 515 

F.3d at 1190 (quoting Gall, 552 U .S. at 51). “[W]e will not second guess the 

weight (or lack thereof) that the [court] accorded to a given [§ 3553(a)] factor ... as 

long as the sentence ultimately imposed is reasonable in light of all the 

circumstances presented.” United States v. Snipes, 611 F.3d 855, 872 (11th Cir.

2010) (quotation, alteration and emphasis omitted). We will not reweigh the 

relevant § 3553(a) factors, and will not remand for resentencing unless the district 

court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by 

imposing a sentence outside the range of reasonable sentences. United States v. 

Langston, 590 F.3d 1226, 1237 (11th Cir. 2009). Thus, a court may abuse its 

discretion when it (1) fails to consider relevant factors that were due significant 

weight, (2) gives an improper or irrelevant factor significant weight, or (3) 

commits a clear error of judgment by balancing the proper factors unreasonably. 

United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Moreover, a 

court should not focus on one factor “single-mindedly” to the detriment of other 

factors, and a court’s unjustified reliance on any one § 3553(a) factor may be a 

USCA11 Case: 15-11625 Date Filed: 09/30/2015 Page: 3 of 6
4

symptom of an unreasonable sentence. United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285, 

1292 (11th Cir. 2006). 

We may not presume that a sentence outside the guideline range is 

unreasonable, and “must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the 

§ 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 

1187 (quotation omitted). Extraordinary justification is not required, but the 

district court should explain why the variance is appropriate, and the justification 

must be sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance. Id. at 

1186-87. A sentence imposed well below the statutory maximum penalty is an 

indicator of a reasonable sentence. See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 

1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that the sentence was reasonable in part because it 

was well below the statutory maximum). The maximum term of imprisonment for 

a defendant convicted of illegal reentry by a deported alien under 8 U.S.C. § 

1326(a) is two years. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

Here, Ortiz-Merino has failed to show that his sentence is unreasonable. As 

for procedural reasonableness, the district court was not required to specifically 

discuss each § 3553(a) factor, and the record establishes that the court set forth 

enough to show that it had considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned 

basis for its decision -- specifically, it said that it had considered the parties’ 

arguments, the guideline range, and the § 3553(a) factors. In imposing the upward 

USCA11 Case: 15-11625 Date Filed: 09/30/2015 Page: 4 of 6
5

variance, the court stressed that Ortiz-Merino’s number of illegal reentries was 

“extraordinary” and demonstrated a lack of respect for the law. The court also 

responded to Ortiz-Merino’s arguments that he (1) had usually voluntarily departed 

the United States, and (2) came to the United States because of troubling 

circumstances in Mexico. 

As for substantive reasonableness, the district court explained why the 

variance was appropriate and gave a sufficiently compelling justification for it: 

Ortiz-Merino’s record of 14 illegal entries and voluntary departures or removals 

prior to the instant conviction, which implicated several § 3553(a) factors, 

including the need to promote respect for the law and deter criminal conduct. The 

variance was also supported by Ortiz-Merino’s numerous driving offenses, 

including ten convictions for driving without a valid driver’s license, as well as his 

conviction for domestic battery and pending charge for aggravated battery. 

Although the district court placed significant weight on Ortiz-Merino’s repeated 

illegal entries, it did not focus on this factor “single-mindedly” to the detriment of 

others, and expressly noted that it considered the § 3553(a) factors as well as the 

parties’ arguments, which addressed a multitude of § 3553(a) factors. While the 

court may not have weighed Ortiz-Merino’s traumatic childhood experiences as 

much as he desired, its decision to weigh other factors more heavily was within its 

USCA11 Case: 15-11625 Date Filed: 09/30/2015 Page: 5 of 6
6

sound discretion. Finally, the 12-month sentence was considerably below the 24-

month statutory maximum. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-11625 Date Filed: 09/30/2015 Page: 6 of 6