Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-14415/USCOURTS-ca11-14-14415-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Yonis Ernesto Villatoro-Ordonez
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-14415

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80129-KLR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

YONIS ERNESTO VILLATORO-ORDONEZ, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 27, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 14-14415 Date Filed: 04/27/2015 Page: 1 of 4
2

Defendant Yonis Villatoro-Ordonez pled guilty to illegal reentry after 

deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He now appeals his 6-month, 

within-guideline range sentence.1

 On appeal, Defendant argues that the district 

court procedurally erred in imposing his sentence by failing to consider all the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. After review, we affirm. 

We review the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion using 

a two-step process. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008). 

We look first to whether the district court committed any significant procedural 

error and then at whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the 

totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.2

 Id. The party 

challenging the sentence bears the burden of showing that it is unreasonable. Id. at 

1189. On appeal, Defendant challenges his sentence only on procedural 

reasonableness grounds. 

 1 Although Defendant was released from prison on January 12, 2015, his appeal is not 

moot because he is still serving a one-year supervised release term. See Dawson v. Scott, 50 

F.3d 884, 886 n.2 (11th Cir. 1995). 

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

history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need 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 

deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed 

educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the 

Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) 

the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to 

victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

USCA11 Case: 14-14415 Date Filed: 04/27/2015 Page: 2 of 4
3

The district court commits a significant procedural error by miscalculating 

the advisory guideline 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. Id. at 1190. While a

failure to consider the § 3553(a) factors constitutes procedural error, a district court 

is not required “to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the 

§ 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. 

Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005). An acknowledgment that the court 

has considered the defendant’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors is adequate. 

Id. at 1330. 

Here, Defendant has not shown that his sentence is procedurally 

unreasonable. Contrary to Defendant’s argument, the district court did consider 

the § 3553(a) factors before imposing sentence. The record reflects that the district 

court placed substantial weight on Defendant’s history of prior illegal reentries and 

on the need to deter Defendant from committing further criminal conduct: 

specifically, discouraging his pattern of continuing to illegally reenter the United 

States after being deported. In doing so, the court noted that, despite having been 

deported twice in the prior two years and having previously been sentenced to time 

USCA11 Case: 14-14415 Date Filed: 04/27/2015 Page: 3 of 4
4

served3—the same sentence Defendant was requesting in the present case—

Defendant had been undeterred and had continued to illegally reenter the United 

States. The court also addressed the § 3553 factor that Defendant argued should 

control: the violent conditions in El Salvador and the fact that his wife and child4

lived in the United States. It, however, rejected this factor as justifying

Defendant’s illegal reentry or a lower sentence. 

Further, the district court explicitly acknowledged that it had considered the 

parties’ arguments at sentencing and that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors. 

The fact that the court emphasized particular factors—the need to deter Defendant 

from continuing to illegally reenter the United States and his past history of illegal 

reentry—does not mean that it failed to consider all the factors or that the sentence 

was unreasonable. See United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1324 (11th Cir. 

2008) (the fact that the sentencing court emphasizes one § 3553 factor as most 

important does not mean that it has failed to consider all the factors). 

Consequently, the district court did not procedurally err in sentencing Defendant.

AFFIRMED. 

 3 At the time of sentencing, Defendant had served almost two months, which was within 

Defendant’s guideline range of one to seven months’ imprisonment. 

4

 Defendant married his wife while he was illegally in this country and the child of that 

union was also born while Defendant was here illegally. 

USCA11 Case: 14-14415 Date Filed: 04/27/2015 Page: 4 of 4