Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10034/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10034-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gustavo Leon-Ramos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10034

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00289-TWT-JFK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

GUSTAVO LEON-RAMOS, 

a.k.a. Juan Carlos Serna-Ruiz,

a.k.a. Juan Cruz Serna,

a.k.a. Martin Tapiafranco,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 31, 2015)

Before MARCUS, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-10034 Date Filed: 07/31/2015 Page: 1 of 5
2

Gustavo Leon-Ramos appeals his 37-month sentence, imposed after 

pleading guilty to one count of reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(a), (b)(2). In imposing this sentence, the district court granted LeonRamos’s motion for a downward departure based on the time he had already spent 

in state custody, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, application note 8, departing from 

the guideline range of 70 to 87 months. On appeal, Leon-Ramos argues that the 

sentence is unreasonable because the district court misapplied the Guidelines when 

it: (1) imposed a 16-level enhancement, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i), for 

being previously deported following a conviction for a drug offense for which the 

sentence imposed exceeded 13 months; and (2) assessed 2 additional criminal 

history points, under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d), for having committed the instant 

offense while under a criminal sentence. After thorough review, we affirm.

We review the interpretation and application of the Guidelines de novo, and 

the underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Rodriguez, 732 

F.3d 1299, 1305 (11th Cir. 2013). However, “it is not necessary to decide 

guidelines issues or remand cases for new sentence proceedings where the 

guidelines error, if any, did not affect the sentence.” United States v. Keene, 470 

F.3d 1347, 1349 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted). To determine whether an 

alleged error was harmless, we must consider: (1) whether the district court would 

have reached the same result if it had decided the guidelines issue in the 

USCA11 Case: 15-10034 Date Filed: 07/31/2015 Page: 2 of 5
3

defendant’s favor; and (2) assuming the guidelines issue had been decided in the 

defendant’s favor, whether the sentence imposed was reasonable in light of the § 

3553(a) factors. Id. When reviewing the sentence a district court imposes for 

“reasonableness,” we “merely ask[] whether the trial court abused its discretion.” 

United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Rita v. 

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007)). 

In this case, we need not reach the question of whether the Guidelines were 

properly applied because any error in the application of the Guidelines was 

harmless. As the record shows, the district court expressly said that it would have 

imposed the same sentence absent the enhancements. Thus, the first-prong of the 

harmless error inquiry set forth in Keene is satisfied.

In addition, because Leon-Ramos’s sentence was reasonable, the second part 

of the test is also satisfied. In reviewing the “‘substantive reasonableness of [a] 

sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard,’” we consider the 

“‘totality of the circumstances.’” Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1190 (quoting Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). The district court must impose a sentence 

“sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes” listed in 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a).1

 “[W]e will not second guess the weight (or lack thereof) that 

 1 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 imposed to reflect the 

seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the 

USCA11 Case: 15-10034 Date Filed: 07/31/2015 Page: 3 of 5
4

the [court] accorded to a given [§ 3553(a)] factor ... as long as the sentence 

ultimately imposed is reasonable in light of all the circumstances presented.” 

United States v. Snipes, 611 F.3d 855, 872 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation, alteration 

and emphasis omitted). We will vacate a sentence only if we “are left with the 

definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of 

judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies 

outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United 

States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotations omitted).

While we do not automatically presume that a sentence falling within the 

guideline range is reasonable, we ordinarily expect that sentence to be reasonable. 

United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). The reasonableness of 

a sentence may also be indicated when the sentence imposed is well below the 

statutory maximum. United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 

2008). The party challenging the sentence bears the burden to show it is 

unreasonable. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). 

Here, even if the guideline issues had been resolved in his favor, LeonRamos’s 37-month sentence is substantively reasonable. The record reveals that 

 

offense; (3) the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence; (4) the need to 

protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with educational or vocational training 

or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) the 

pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwanted 

sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

USCA11 Case: 15-10034 Date Filed: 07/31/2015 Page: 4 of 5
5

without the errors he alleges, he would have had a criminal history category of IV 

and a total of 17 offense points, resulting in a guideline range of 37 to 46 months. 

See U.S.S.G. Sentencing Table, Ch.5, Pt. A. Thus, his 37-month sentence would 

have been at the very bottom of the guideline range -- a sentence we ordinarily 

would expect to be reasonable. Moreover, his 37-month sentence is well below the 

20-year statutory maximum penalty. Indeed, it is the very sentence that he 

requested. 

The record also indicates that the district court considered all of the § 

3553(a) factors in imposing the sentence and concluded that the 37-month sentence 

was “fair and reasonable” in light of these factors. Under the circumstances, 

particularly given the fact that he had previously been deported nine times, but 

continued to reenter the country, the record supports the conclusion that the 37-

month sentence was sufficient, but not greater than necessary to accomplish the 

sentencing goals set forth in § 3553(a) -- principally, the need to reflect the 

seriousness of the offense, the need to deter him from reentering the country for an 

eleventh time, and the need to promote respect for the law. In short, because his 

37-month sentence would have been reasonable even without the errors he alleges,

any error the district court may have committed in applying the Guidelines was 

harmless, and we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-10034 Date Filed: 07/31/2015 Page: 5 of 5