Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03941/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03941-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Magdaleno Diaz-Morales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Raymond C. Clevenger, III, Judge of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3941

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

* 

Magdaleno Diaz-Morales, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 14, 2010

Filed: June 22, 2010

___________

Before BYE, CLEVENGER,1

 and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Magdaleno Diaz-Morales pleaded guilty to unlawful re-entry after removal in

violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2) and 6 U.S.C. §§ 202, 557. After calculating

a United States Sentencing Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months, the district court2

sentenced Diaz-Morales to forty-eight months imprisonment. Diaz-Morales appeals,

arguing the sentence is unreasonable and the district court failed to consider or did not

Appellate Case: 09-3941 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Entry ID: 3676434
-2-

give enough weight to his history and circumstances under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We

affirm. 

Diaz-Morales entered the United States from Mexico in 1966 and became a

lawful permanent resident in 1988. In 1996, Diaz-Morales was convicted of

possession with intent to distribute cocaine and, following imprisonment, was

deported to Mexico. After illegally re-entering the United States, Diaz-Morales was

deported a second time in 2003. Diaz-Morales illegally re-entered the United States

again, and was convicted of second-degree possession of cocaine in 2005. After

serving his prison sentence, he was deported for a third time in 2007. Diaz-Morales

again illegally re-entered the country and, on March 27, 2009, was arrested for giving

a police officer a false name after he applied for a job using the false name. DiazMorales pleaded guilty to the crime of unlawful re-entry after removal and was

sentenced to forty-eight months imprisonment.

In a plea agreement, the government and Diaz-Morales concluded his offense

level was 21 under the Sentencing Guidelines and his criminal history level was III

or IV. The district court found Diaz-Morales’ criminal history level to be IV, which

resulted in a Guideline range of 57 to 71 months imprisonment. Diaz-Morales

requested a sentence of no more than twenty-four months, arguing a greater sentence

would be unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) due to his circumstances and

history in the United States.

At the sentencing hearing, neither party objected to the findings of fact or the

Guideline calculations set forth in the Presentence Report (PSR). Defense counsel

again argued for a significantly reduced sentence for Diaz-Morales. The district court

sentenced Diaz-Morales to forty-eight months imprisonment, which was a ninemonth downward variance from the Guidelines range minimum. Diaz-Morales

appeals, contending his sentence is unreasonable and the district court failed to give

Appellate Case: 09-3941 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Entry ID: 3676434
-3-

proper weight to his work history, strong ties to the United States, his family, and the

reasons he committed the drug offenses.

“[A]ppellate review of sentencing decisions is limited to determining whether

they are ‘reasonable.’ ” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). We review the

reasonableness of a sentence under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id.

at 41. First, this court must ensure the district court committed no significant

procedural error at sentencing. Id. at 51. Procedural errors include “failing to

calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as

mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence-including

an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Id. “If the district

court’s decision is procedurally sound, then we will consider the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence imposed, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard.”

United States v. Braggs, 511 F.3d 808, 812 (8th Cir. 2008).

Diaz-Morales has not identified evidence in the record indicating the district

court committed a significant procedural error. The district court is not required to

specifically respond to every argument made by the defendant; rather the district court

must show it considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for reaching

its conclusion. United States v. Struzik, 572 F.3d 484, 487 (8th Cir. 2009). It is

evident the district court considered Diaz-Morales’ history and circumstances in

sentencing Diaz-Morales to forty-eight months imprisonment. The district court had

exposure to the factors and arguments presented on appeal by Diaz-Morales in the

PSR and the parties’ sentencing memoranda. See United States v. Battiest, 553 F.3d

1132, 1136 (8th Cir. 2009) (“Those documents addressed the § 3553 factors,

[defendant’s] life history, and parties’ recommendations for sentences that they

considered sufficient but not greater than necessary. [T]he district court had

significant exposure to the sentencing issues [defendant] claims it failed to adequately

consider.”). Further, it is evident the district court examined those materials and

Appellate Case: 09-3941 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Entry ID: 3676434
-4-

considered both the parties’ arguments. This is especially apparent given the district

court’s imposition of a sentence nine months below the Guidelines range. For these

reasons, the district court committed no procedural error at sentencing.

We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an

unreasonable sentence. An abuse of discretion occurs “where the sentencing court

‘fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives

significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only the

appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.’”

United States v. Moore, 565 F.3d 435, 438 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v.

Kowal, 527 F.3d 741, 749 (8th Cir. 2008)). “As the case law in the courts of appeals

since Gall demonstrates, it will be the unusual case when we reverse a district court

sentence--whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines range--as

substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir.

2009) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089, 1090 (D.C. Cir.

2008)). Diaz-Morales contends his sentence is unreasonable because of his work

history, strong ties to the United States, his family, and the reasons he committed the

drug offenses. The district court considered those arguments but found they were not

sufficiently compelling to warrant a greater variance. The district court acted within

its discretion in determining the extent of the variance. See United States v. Price, 542

F.3d 617, 622 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court is acting within its discretion when

imposing a below-Guidelines sentence after considering all evidence). Giving

deference to the district court’s decision, we conclude the sentence of forty-eight

months is not unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3941 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Entry ID: 3676434