Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02768/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02768-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ruben Sanchez-Espinoza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 09-2768

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Ruben Sanchez-Espinoza, True

Name Ruben Sanchez Espinoza,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

District of Minnesota.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

 Submitted: February 8, 2010

 Filed: February 19, 2010

________________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Ruben Sanchez Espinoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals as

unreasonable the district court's1

 imposition of a 41-month sentence after he pleaded

guilty to one count of illegally reentering the United States after a previous removal.

In July 2001, Sanchez Espinoza was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the third

degree, a felony under Minnesota law and a crime of violence under the United States

Sentencing Guidelines. Sanchez Espinoza was ordered removed to Mexico. He

Appellate Case: 09-2768 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2010 Entry ID: 3636000
-2-

reentered the United States without authorization in 2003. In November 2008,

Sanchez Espinoza was found in Minnesota. He was indicted for, and pleaded guilty

to, illegal reentry after removal.

At sentencing, the district court calculated an advisory Guidelines sentencing

range of 41 to 51 months. As part of that calculation, the district court applied a

sixteen-level enhancement because Sanchez Espinoza previously had been convicted

of a crime of violence. See USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). The court sentenced Sanchez

Espinoza to 41 months of imprisonment.

On appeal, Sanchez Espinoza complains that the bottom-of-the-range 41-month

sentence is more than necessary to accomplish the goals of the sentencing statute. He

does not argue that the district court committed procedural error in calculating the

advisory Guidelines sentencing range. Upon careful review, we conclude that the

within-Guidelines sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Linderman, 587

F.3d 896, 901 (8th Cir. 2009) (within-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable on

appeal). The district court explicitly stated its belief that a 41-month sentence was the

minimum sentence necessary to accomplish the purposes of sentencing. In arriving

at that conclusion, the district court properly considered the sentencing factors, see 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the need to promote respect for the rule of law, to deter

Sanchez Espinoza from illegally reentering the United States in the future, and to

reflect the seriousness of the offense. The district court noted the seriousness of the

offense supporting the sixteen-level specific offense characteristic enhancement. The

district court viewed the Minnesota state court's minimal sentence for the criminal

sexual conduct as akin to an invitation to Sanchez Espinoza to return to the United

States. In contrast, the district court attempted to advance the deterrence goals called

for by § 3553(a)(2)(B),(C). The district court did not abuse its wide discretion in

sentencing Sanchez Espinoza. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)

(requiring "deferential abuse-of-discretion standard" of review).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2768 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2010 Entry ID: 3636000