Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04169/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04169-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Tovar-Arguello
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4169

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Daniel Tovar-Arguello, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 4, 2007

Filed: October 9, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Tovar-Arguello, a citizen of Mexico, pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having been deported following his conviction for an

aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) and 6 U.S.C. §§ 202(3),

(4), and 557. His advisory Guidelines imprisonment range was 30-37 months, and he

was sentenced to 30 months in prison by the district court.1

 On appeal, TovarArguello argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court (1)

undervalued the mitigating facts and unique circumstances of his case, such as his

Appellate Case: 06-4169 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2007 Entry ID: 3359807
-2-

benign reasons for illegal re-entry, and (2) overvalued the deterrent effect of a prison

sentence. His argument relies on the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the

“parsimony” doctrine, which provides that the sentence imposed should be the least

severe sanction necessary to achieve the purpose of sentencing.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in sentencing Tovar-Arguello at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines

range. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (presumption of

reasonableness applies to sentence imposed within advisory Guidelines range); United

States v. Garlewicz, 493 F.3d 933, 938 (8th Cir. 2007) (same); United States v. Long

Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of sentence is reviewed

for abuse of discretion, which occurs if court fails to consider relevant factor that

should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or

irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but commits clear error of

judgment); cf. United States v. Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir. 2006)

(“It will be the rare case in which a within-the-range sentence can be found to

transgress the parsimony principle.”), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3064 (2007); United

States v. Dyck, 334 F.3d 736, 742 (8th Cir. 2003) (“harm sought to be prevented is

illegal reentry itself, for whatever purpose”).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4169 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2007 Entry ID: 3359807