Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13358/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13358-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Bernardo Montoya-Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13358

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN BERNARDO MONTOYA-MARTINEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cr-14017-DMM-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-13358 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 12/31/2024 Page: 1 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13358

Before BRANCH, ANDERSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Juan Bernardo Montoya-Martinez appeals his sentence of 

37 months of imprisonment imposed after he pled guilty to illegal 

reentry after removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Undisputedly, 

Montoya-Martinez has been previously removed three times 

before. He argues that his within-guidelines sentence is 

substantively unreasonable because (1) the district court failed to 

consider his history and characteristics and (2) a lesser sentence 

would have sufficed. After review, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Charges and Guilty Plea

In 2023, Montoya-Martinez pled guilty to illegally reentering 

the United States. Id. As part of his plea, he stipulated that he was 

a native and citizen of Mexico who had been removed from the 

United States three times—on March 30, 2012; February 13, 2019; 

and January 28, 2021. Despite knowing that it was a crime to 

reenter or be found in the United States without express 

permission, he illegally reentered the United States in 2021. 

Immigration officers became aware of his presence in the United 

States after he was arrested for a state offense in Okeechobee 

County, Florida.

USCA11 Case: 23-13358 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 12/31/2024 Page: 2 of 8
23-13358 Opinion of the Court 3

B. Presentence Investigation Report

The probation officer prepared a presentence investigation 

report (“PSI”) that described Montoya-Martinez’s removal and 

criminal history as follows. In 2007, he was convicted in Arizona 

state court for possessing dangerous drugs for sale, specifically 

methamphetamine, and aggravated driving while under the 

influence, and he was sentenced to five years of imprisonment. He 

was removed in March 2012. 

In December 2018, Montoya-Martinez reentered the United 

States and was charged in the Western District of Texas with illegal 

reentry. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). The indictment was dismissed, 

however, and he was removed to Mexico a second time in 

February 2019.

A few months later, in October 2019, Montoya-Martinez 

returned a third time. In 2020, he pled guilty to illegal reentry, 8 

U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1), in the Western District of Texas and was 

sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment followed by 3 years of 

supervised release. In January 2021, he was removed a third time, 

but he returned nine months later, in October 2021. 

About a year later, in November 2022, police arrested 

Montoya-Martinez in Florida for driving without a valid license 

and for giving a false name or identification while arrested or 

detained. In January 2023, after he was released from custody in 

Florida, he was arrested in Texas—this time for violating 

supervised release in his 2019 illegal reentry case. Based on his 

admission to immigration officials that he had entered the United 

USCA11 Case: 23-13358 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 12/31/2024 Page: 3 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 23-13358

States a fourth time in October 2021, a federal grand jury indicted

him for the instant offense of illegal reentry. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), 

(b)(2).

The PSI determined that Montoya-Martinez’s advisory 

guidelines range was 46 to 57 months of imprisonment based on a 

total offense level of 19 and a criminal history category of IV. In 

assessing his criminal history, the PSI assigned eight total points for 

(1) his 2007 state convictions for possessing a dangerous drug for 

sale and aggravated driving under the influence and (2) his 2020 

federal conviction for illegal reentry. The parties filed no written 

objections to the PSI.

C. Sentencing on September 28, 2023

At sentencing, Montoya-Martinez asked the district court to 

remove two status points from his criminal history based on 

forthcoming amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. This 

two-point reduction would reduce Montoya-Martinez’s criminal 

history category from IV to III. The government stated that it 

would agree to the reduction if Montoya-Martinez waived any

possibility of moving for a reduction in the future based on that 

Guidelines provision. Montoya-Martinez agreed that he would 

waive any such challenge. Instead of the 46-to-57-month guideline 

range with a criminal history category of IV, the district court 

recalculated his advisory guidelines sentence as 37 to 46 months 

based on the total offense level of 19 and a new criminal history 

USCA11 Case: 23-13358 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 12/31/2024 Page: 4 of 8
23-13358 Opinion of the Court 5

category of III.1 The government requested a sentence of 40 

months of imprisonment.

Montoya-Martinez argued for a downward variance to a 

sentence of 18 months, which would mirror his sentence from his 

2019 illegal-reentry conviction. Specifically, he argued that the 

statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), weighed in favor 

of his requested sentence because his criminal history revealed no 

pattern of violence or crimes against other individuals. So, he 

contended, a greater sentence was not necessary to protect the 

public or deter him from future criminal conduct. In his written 

statement to the district court, read by his counsel, 

Montoya-Martinez asked the district court to “not think so 

negatively about his criminal convictions” and to “understand that 

he does try to do right while he is here in this country.” He also 

explained that he reentered the United States to be with his family. 

1 Under the 2021 Sentencing Guidelines, which were in place during 

Montoya-Martinez’s sentencing proceeding, two points are assessed if the 

defendant “committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice 

sentence,” including supervised release. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) (Nov. 1, 2021). 

But under the 2023 Guidelines, only one point is assessed and only if the 

defendant scored seven or more points under § 4A1.1(a)-(d) and committed 

the instant offense under any criminal justice sentence. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e) 

(Nov. 1, 2023). Thus, because Montoya-Martinez had a subtotal of six criminal 

history points without the two-point increase for committing the instant 

offense while under supervised release, he did not have a subtotal of at least 

seven points and would not be assessed any additional points if sentenced 

under the 2023 Guidelines. See id. The reduction from eight criminal status 

points to six criminal status points reduced his criminal history category from 

IV to III. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13358 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 12/31/2024 Page: 5 of 8
6 Opinion of the Court 23-13358

The district court sentenced Montoya-Martinez to 37 

months followed by 3 years of supervised release, at the low end of 

his revised advisory guidelines range. The district court stated that 

it considered the arguments and statutory sentencing factors. 

Specifically, it found Montoya-Martinez’s request for an 18-month 

sentence unreasonable because his previous 18-month sentence for 

illegal reentry failed to deter him from reoffending. The district 

court also determined that a 40-month sentence was unnecessary 

and that the bottom of the guidelines range “represent[ed] a 

reasonable sentence.” Montoya-Martinez objected and timely 

appealed. 

II. DISCUSSION

On appeal, Montoya-Martinez challenges the substantive 

reasonableness of his 37-month sentence. He argues that the 

district court failed to consider his history and characteristics and 

asserts that a lesser sentence would have sufficed. We disagree.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for 

abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In 

doing so, we determine “whether the sentence is substantively 

reasonable given the totality of the circumstances and the 

sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v.

Boone, 97 F.4th 1331, 1338 (11th Cir. 2024).2 The district court 

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 for the 

sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, 

and provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for deterrence; 

USCA11 Case: 23-13358 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 12/31/2024 Page: 6 of 8
23-13358 Opinion of the Court 7

imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence when it “(1) fails to 

afford consideration to relevant factors that were due significant 

weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant 

factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the 

proper factors.” United States v. Butler, 39 F.4th 1349, 1355 (11th 

Cir. 2022).

Montoya-Martinez’s sentence of 37 months is substantively 

reasonable. He argues that the district court abused its discretion 

because a lesser sentence “would have satisfied the necessity of 

punishing” him. The district court, however, reasonably found 

that a longer sentence was necessary this time. Specifically, the 

district court explained that the fact that he illegally reentered the 

United States after receiving an 18-month sentence for his third

illegal reentry (in 2019) revealed that an 18-month sentence 

evidently would not deter him from illegally reentering the United 

States again. See Boone, 97 F.4th at 1342-43 (explaining that, to 

establish that a district court abused its discretion, the defendant 

must show that the sentence “lies outside the range of reasonable 

sentences dictated by the facts of the case and the relevant 

sentencing factors,” not merely that a “lesser sentence would, in 

his opinion, be more appropriate” (quotation marks omitted)). 

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

needed education 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: 23-13358 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 12/31/2024 Page: 7 of 8
8 Opinion of the Court 23-13358

The district court also was well within its discretion to 

consider Montoya-Martinez’s criminal history in determining his 

sentence. See United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1262

(11th Cir. 2015). The district court was not required to explicitly

address all of his proposed mitigating factors—such as his criminal 

history lacking a pattern of violence or crimes against individuals—

where the record reveals that the district court considered the 

statutory sentencing factors. See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 

1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that the district court need 

not “discuss or state each factor explicitly” and must only 

acknowledge that it considered the statutory sentencing factors). 

Further, Montoya-Martinez’s 37-month sentence did not exceed 

the advisory guideline range and was far below the 20-year 

statutory maximum, both of which are indicative of the sentence’s

reasonableness. See id.

III. CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM Montoya-Martinez’s conviction and 37-month

sentence.

USCA11 Case: 23-13358 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 12/31/2024 Page: 8 of 8