Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01538/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01538-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gilberto Bolivar-Diaz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1538

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States 

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

* 

Gilberto Bolivar-Diaz, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 17, 2009

Filed: February 10, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

On appeal, Gilberto Bolivar-Diaz challenges the reasonableness of his forty-one

month prison sentence imposed by the district court1

 following his guilty plea to

illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). We affirm.

Appellate Case: 09-1538 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2010 Entry ID: 3632915
-2-

I. BACKGROUND

On March 11, 2008, Bolivar-Diaz was indicted for illegal reentry in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). This indictment followed a lifelong history of illegal

entry and criminal activity resulting in various convictions and jail time for BolivarDiaz. 

According to Bolivar-Diaz he was born in Guanjuato, Mexico, on October 21,

1953. He came to the United States at the age of eleven for reasons unclear in the

Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and sentencing transcript. Indeed, much of

Bolivar-Diaz's actual history is unclear because he has provided inconsistent

information throughout the years to government officials. What is clear, however, is

that Bolivar-Diaz is an illegal alien who has been deported at least twice. And, his

criminal history is voluminous. The PSR identifies eleven convictions for crimes

ranging from unlawful use of a weapon and distribution of heroin, to theft and failure

to drive in a single lane. The PSR additionally notes seven other arrests for various

crimes ranging from disorderly conduct to possession of marijuana, none of which

were included in the criminal history computation for sentencing purposes. This

litany gives the court a clear picture of Bolivar-Diaz's consistent pattern and practice

of illegal behavior.

Bolivar-Diaz pled guilty to the instant offense and requested that the district

court impose a sentence between twelve and eighteen months–a great reduction from

the suggested advisory guidelines range of forty-one to fifty-one months. The

variance, argues Bolivar-Diaz, is warranted based upon the following: (1) he is in his

fifties; (2) he has a daughter and grandchild in the United States (although we note

that the PSR indicates Bolivar-Diaz reported he had not seen his daughter in four

years); (3) he has never lived as an adult in Mexico (although he is a citizen of that

country) and thus starting his life in a foreign place once deported following

imprisonment, would be difficult so a lesser sentence would jumpstart that process;

Appellate Case: 09-1538 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2010 Entry ID: 3632915
-3-

(4) he has numerous health problems, including anxiety, thyroid problems, and

hepatitis (for which he reported to be on no medication); (5) he spent many months

in custody prior to his sentencing; (6) given the availability of "fast track" programs

in other areas, a lower sentence lessens disparity, and, finally; (7) because BolivarDiaz is an illegal alien he will not be able to avail himself of certain prison benefits

such as assignment to minimum security prisons, vocational rehabilitation, and drug

treatment. These reasons, argues Bolivar-Diaz, account for several of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors including the personal characteristics of the defendant, sentencing

disparity, promotion of respect for the law, and adequate criminal deterrence. 

In support of a sentence within the advisory guidelines range, the government

pointed out at sentencing, and again on appeal, Bolivar-Diaz's extensive history of

weapons and drug offenses. Also noted was the fact that only a very small minority

of districts offer the "fast track" program and that if the existence of those programs

were used as a basis for variances, it would only increase sentencing disparities.

Addressing Bolivar-Diaz's health, the government argued that imprisonment might

better serve Bolivar-Diaz's medical needs given the risk of mediocre care in Mexico.

And, finally, based upon his history, the government claimed no doubt whatsoever

that upon release and ultimate deportation, Bolivar-Diaz would return to the United

States to continue the criminal activity to which he has become accustomed. Thus,

the government claimed that a longer sentence was warranted to provide just

punishment and protect the public from further crimes by Bolivar-Diaz. Notably, the

latter point seems to have been the driving force behind the court's ultimate sentence

calculation in this case, and remains the thrust of the government's argument on

appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

Our task is to determine whether the district court abused its discretion by

imposing a sentence that is substantively unreasonable. United States v. Linderman,

Appellate Case: 09-1538 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/10/2010 Entry ID: 3632915
-4-

587 F.3d 896, 900 (8th Cir. 2009). Bolivar-Diaz challenges the substantive

reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that it is greater than necessary to accomplish

the sentencing purposes of § 3553(a). Contrary to the government's position regarding

our standard of review, Bolivar-Diaz's failure to object at the sentencing hearing does

not limit our review of the substantive reasonableness of the sentence to plain error.

Id. at 900-01. "A defendant need not object to preserve an attack on the length of the

sentence imposed if he alleges only that the District Court erred in weighing the §

3553(a) factors." United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009). A

sentence that is within the applicable guidelines range may be presumed to be

substantively reasonable. United States v. Ruelas-Mendez, 556 F.3d 655, 657 (8th

Cir. 2009); United States v. Garcia, 512 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2008). 

Our review of the district court's sentencing colloquy reveals that the district

court, in light of the appropriate § 3553(a) factors, considered each factor BolivarDiaz raised in support of the suggested variance. The court did not, however, find

Bolivar-Diaz's suggested mitigating factors persuasive in its overall § 3553(a)

analysis. Indeed, the clarity of Bolivar-Diaz's likelihood of recidivism was just too

great. We are satisfied that the district court considered and gave the appropriate

weight to each of the relevant § 3553(a) factors in determining Bolivar-Diaz's

sentence. Because Bolivar-Diaz's sentence came within the applicable guidelines

range and is amply supported by the record, we conclude that the sentence is not

substantively unreasonable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1538 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/10/2010 Entry ID: 3632915