Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-09-02285/USCOURTS-ca10-09-02285-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
David Velasquez-Espinosa
Appellant

Document Text:

*

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding

precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and

collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 30, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 09-2285

v. (D. New Mexico)

DAVID VELASQUEZ-ESPINOSA,

Defendant - Appellant.

(D.C. No. 1:09-CR-01276-JEC-1)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

David Velasquez-Espinosa pleaded guilty to re-entry of a removed alien,

see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and was sentenced to imprisonment for 57 months, which

was at the bottom of the guidelines range. On appeal he challenges only the

substantive reasonableness of his sentence, contending that the district court

should have granted him a downward variance. See Aplt. Br. at 7 (“Mr. 

Velasquez-Espinosa does not challenge the procedural component of the sentence,

Appellate Case: 09-2285 Document: 01018412882 Date Filed: 04/30/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

but does challenge the substantive reasonableness . . . .”). We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Because Mr. Velasquez-Espinosa’s sentence was within the advisory

guidelines range, we must reject his claim of substantive unreasonableness unless

he can overcome the presumption that the sentence was reasonable. See United

States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1055 (10th Cir. 2006). He has failed to do so. 

His principal argument is that his criminal-history category overstated his

criminal past because he has straightened up his life since he got married and had

children. He also raises the rather common argument that he is closely attached

to his children. The district court could reasonably decide that the sentence

imposed was proper, particularly in light of Mr. Velasquez-Espinosa’s conviction

of aggravated driving while intoxicated only a few months before he entered his

plea in this case.

We AFFIRM the judgment and sentence below.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-2285 Document: 01018412882 Date Filed: 04/30/2010 Page: 2