Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03184/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03184-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin Lima-Pacheco
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3184

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Martin Lima-Pacheco, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 24, 2007

 Filed: May 29, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Martin Lima-Pacheco pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States

after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. Having calculated a Guidelines imprisonment range of 70-87 months,

the district court1

 sentenced him to 75 months. Lima-Pacheco appeals, arguing that

his sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not consider relevant 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that should have received significant weight. We disagree.

Appellate Case: 06-3184 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2007 Entry ID: 3313634
-2-

See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005) (appellate review for

unreasonableness).

The record shows that the district court properly considered the undisputed

advisory Guidelines range, the nature of the offense, the defendant’s circumstances

and history (including repeated unlawful entries, deportations, and imprisonment),

sentencing objectives (especially deterrence), and the need to avoid unwarranted

sentence disparities. We hold that the sentence the district court then imposed is not

unreasonable. See United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 741 (8th Cir. 2006)

(addressing consideration of § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Sebastian, 436 F.3d

913, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2006) (with regard to determination “that certain disparities are

warranted,” recognizing both Congress’s policymaking power and Attorney General’s

prosecutorial discretion).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3184 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2007 Entry ID: 3313634