T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * d o c tr in e s o f

la w o f th e c a s e , re s ju d ica ta and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay25,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

__________________________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. CA RLO S CEJ A- M AR TI NEZ, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3339 ( D. Ct . No . 0 6 - CM - 6 0 0 5 8 - W EB)

(D . K a n .)

____________________________ ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re T AC HA , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge, and BARRETT and BROR BY , Seni or C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 .9 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.

D efe ndantC ar l os C ej a- M art i nez appeal s hi s s ent ence fol l ow i ng r evoca t i onA fter M r. C eja-M arti n ez w as c h arg ed in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt 1 fort he D i s t r i ctof K ans as fori l l egal r eentry , j ur i s di ct i on overhi s s upervi s ed release w as tran sfe rred fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e W estern D is tr ic t o f

T e x a s to th e s a m e K a n s a s c o u rt . -2- o f h is s u p e rv ise d re lea se o n g ro u n d s th e d istric t co u rt u n re a so n a b lyim p o se d h is s ent ence cons ecut i vel yt o, r atherthan conc urr ent l yw i th, hi s s ent ence fori l l egal r eentr yaft erdepor t at i on. M r . C ej a- M ar t i nez r ai s es thr ee i s s ues i n s uppor tof a co n cu rren t sen tenc e, arg u ing the d istri ct co u rt : 1) fa il ed to m ak e n ec essa ry fin d in g s p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ); 2 ) p re v e n ted c o u n se l f ro m m a k in g a f

u ll ar gum enton one of the § 3553( a) fac t or s ; and 3) i m pr oper l yr el i ed on U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “G ui del i nes ” or“U . S. S. G . ”) § 7B 1. 3( f) , w hi ch ma n d a t e s a c o n s e c u t i v e s e n t e n c e . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. § 3742 and 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and affi r m the i m pos i t i on of cons ecut i ve s ent ence s b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt in s e n te n c in g M r. C eja -M a rt in e z . I . Pr ocedur al B ackgr ound M r . C ej a- M art i nez pl ed gui l tyt o one countof i l l egal r eentryaft er depor t at i on foran aggr avat ed fe l ony . A tthe t i m e M r . C ej a- M ar t i nez c om m i t t ed t hi s offe ns e, he w as s ervi ng a t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e forthe aggr avat ed fe l ony convi ct i on. A ft erhe comm i t t ed the offens e of i l l egal r eentry , the governm ent fi l ed a pe t i t i on t o r evoke hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e, overw hi ch the s ame di s tr i ct cour t t ook j ur i s di ct i on. O n Sept ember11, 2006, t he di s tr i ctcourthel d a hea r i ng 1T he r ecor d es t abl i s hes M r . C ej a- M ar t i nez di d notobj ectt o the 2 p re se n ten c e re p o rt w h ich c a lcu late d th e a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s ra n g e s fo r h is s ent ence s . O n appea l , nei t herpartyfurni s hed the pr es ent ence r eportforour r e v i e w. -3- on bot h t he i l l egal r eentr ys ent ence and the s upervi s ed r el eas e vi ol at i on and se n ten c e . A t th a t ti m e , M r. C eja- M a rtin e z a d m itt e d v io latin g th e c o n d iti o n s o f h is su p e rv ise d re lea se , b u t ar g u e d h is s e n ten c e sh o u ld ru n c o n c u rre n tlyw ith h is s ent ence fori l l egal r eentr ybeca us e the vi ol at i on conductw as t aken i nt o acc ount i n det erm i ni ng t he G ui del i nes r ange of s eventy - s even t o ni nety - s i x m onths im p ri so n m en t fo r h is il lega l ree n try sen tenc e. B ase d o n M r. C eja-M arti n ez ’s 2 v iolati o n o f th e c o n d it ion s o f h is sup erv ised release , the d istri ct co u rtrev o k ed M r. C eja -M a rt in e z ’s s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . I n r es ent enci ng M r . C ej a- M ar t i nez the di s tr i ctcourtpr ovi ded an expl anat i on fort he ca l cul at i on and l ength of the s ent ence i m pos ed, t hr ough verbal stat em en ts atthe h ea ri n g an d a fo rm al w ri tt en m em o ran d u m an d o rde r. It expl ai ned the pol i cys t at ement s i n C hapt erSeven of the G ui del i nes , i ncl udi ng § 7 B 1. 3(f) , recom m end ed a cu st od i al sent ence o f ei gh t een to tw enty -four m on t hs, w i t h s uch s ent ence t o run cons ecut i vel yt o anyt erm of i m pr i s onm enti m pos ed for hi s i l l egal r eentr ycas e. T he di s tr i ctcourtr ecogni zed the r ecomm endat i on w as a d v iso rya n d n o ted it reta in e d d isc re tio n to ru n th e se n ten c e s e ith e r c o n c u rre n tly o r co n sec u ti v ely . A fter co n side ri n g the s en tenc ing fa ctors in 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a),T he r ecor d i ndi cat es M r . C ej a- M ar t i nez ha d s i x s epar at e r evoca t i ons of 3 h is s u p e rv is e d re le a s e o n tw o D U I c o n v ic tio n s . -4- th e d istric t co u rt a n n o u n c e d its in ten tio n to se n ten c e M r. C eja- M a rtin e z to eigh teen m o n ths im p ri so n m en t, to ru n co n sec u ti v elyto h is i ll eg al reen try s ent ence , s t at i ng i tw as an appr opr i at e s ent ence bas ed on i t s cons i der at i on of the n a tu re o f

th e v io latio n ; M r. C eja- M a rtin e z ’s c h a ra c ter istics , inc lu d in g h is s i gni fi cant pr i or hi s t or y of vi ol at i ng condi t i ons of pr obat i on; and the s ent enci ng 3 obj ect i ves r equi r ed bys t atut e, i ncl udi ng the nee d t o det erM r . C ej a- M ar t i nez a nd o th e rs f ro m f u tu re c ri m in a l c o n d u c t.

I n r es pons e, M r . C ej a- M art i nez’ s couns el ar gued the pr i oraggr avat ed convi ct i on w as hi s onl yfel onyand a c oncurr ents ent ence w as m or e appr opr i at e, gi ven hi s pr i orfel onyconvi ct i on w as us ed t o: 1) i ncr eas e hi s offe ns e l evel six tee n lev e ls fo r h is illeg a l re e n tryse n ten c e ; 2 ) a d d tw o c rim in a l h isto ryp o in ts t o hi s i l l egal r eentr ys ent ence ; and 3) r ai s e hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orys cor e t o V fort he r evoca t i on s ent ence and V I fort he i l l egal r eentrys ent ence . H i s couns el added t hatw hi l e M r . C ej a- M art i nez w as not“an a ngel , ” he de s erved a c oncurr ent se n ten c e g iv e n h is o n lyfe lo n yc o n v ictio n re su lted in a len g th yse v e n ty -se v e n - to n in e ty-s ix -m o n th s e n te n c e , ta k in g h im o u ts id e th e h e a rt la n d o f s im ila r c a s e s . C ouns el fur t hernot ed M r . C ej a- M ar t i nez w as a pr oduct i ve mem berof the c o m m u n ityw ith u n iq u e fa m ilyc irc u m sta n c e s, w h ich a rg u a b lya lso to o k h im-5-

o u ts id e th e h e a rt la n d o f s im ila r c a s e s . I n r es pons e, t he di s t r i ctcour tr ei t er at ed M r . C ej a- M ar t i nez ha d num er ous p rio r re v o c a tio n s a n d f u rth e r n o ted th e fa c t h is fa m ilyw o u ld su ffe r f ro m h is i ncar cer at i on ort hathe w as a pr oduct i ve mem berof the comm uni tydi d nott ake hi m out s i de the hea r t l and of c as es . A tthe conc l us i on of ar gum ent s conce rni ng the re v o ca ti o n sen tenc e, th e d istri ct co u rtask ed , “A n ything else? ” to w h ich M r. C ej a- M ar t i nez’ s couns el s t at ed, “N o, Y ourH onor . ” R . , V ol . 2 at16. T he di s tr i ct cour tt hen s ent ence d M r . C ej a- M ar t i nez t o ei ght een mont hs i ncar cer at i on, t o run c o n s e c u tiv e ly to h is s e n te n c e fo r t h e ille g a l r e e n tr yo ffe n s e . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tn e x ts e n t e n c e d M r . C ej a - M a r t i n e z fo rh i s i l l e g a l r e e n tr y, n o ti n g ith ad co n side red the fac tors in 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a), the a d v isory G ui del i nes , and the pr es ent ence r eportfi ndi ngs , and det erm i ned a s ent ence att he l ow end of the advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange of s eventy - s even mont hs i m pr i s onm ent w o u ld se rv e th e p u rp o se s o f se n ten c in g se t fo rth in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). In im p o sin g b o th of M r . C ej a- M art i nez’ s s ent ence s , the di s tr i ctcour tnot ed the cons ecut i ve s ent ence s w oul d r es ul ti n ni nety - fi ve mont hs i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch i s w i thi n the advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange of s eventy - s even t o ni nety - s i x m onths forthe i l l egal re e n tr yo ffe n s e .M r. C eja- M a rtin e z a lso su m m a rilyc laim s § 7 B 1 .3 (f) d o e s n o t ap p ly 4 b e c a u se th e se n ten c e o n re v o c a tio n o f su p e rv ise d re lea se w a s im p o se d first, b e fo re th e im p o sitio n o f h is s e n ten c e o n ill e g a l re e n try . H o w e v e r, b e c a u se b o th s ent ence s w er e i m pos ed att he s ame hear i ng, w e fi nd i ti m m at er i al w hi ch w as (c o n tin u e d ...) -6- I I . D i s cus s i on O n a p p e a l, M r. C eja- M a rtin e z c o n ten d s th e d istric t co u rt u n re a so n a b ly fa iled to se n ten c e h im fo r h is re v o c a tio n o f su p e rv ise d re lea se c o n c u rre n tlyw ith h is s e n ten c e fo r illeg a l re e n trya f ter d e p o rta tio n , res u lti n g in a n u n re a so n a b le sen tenc e. In im p o sing a c o n sec u ti v e se n tenc e, he su g g ests, the d istri ct co u rt fa iled to m a k e n e c e ss a ryfin d in g s p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) re g a rd in g h is unus ual s i tuat i on of havi ng onl yone pr i orfel onyw hi ch i ncr eas ed hi s cr i m i nal h ist o rysco re to V fo r th e re v o ca ti o n sen tenc e a n d V I fo r th e il lega l r ee n try s ent ence , w hi ch, he poi nt s out , ar e “e xtr emel yhi gh cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egor i es . ” D ue t o t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i nt errupt i ons dur i ng hi s couns el ’ s ar gum ent , M r . C ej aM ar t i nez a l s o s ugges t s hi s couns el w as unabl e t o ful l yexpl ai n w hyhi s pr i or fel onypl ace d hi m out s i de the hea r t l and of typi cal cas es , j us t i fy i ng a conc ur r ent s ent ence . Fi nal l y , M r . C ej a- M art i nez a r gues the di s tr i ctcour ti m pr oper l yr el i ed on U . S. S. G . § 7B 1. 3( f) , w hi ch, bythe us e of the w or d “s hal l , ” m andat es a cons ecut i ve s ent ence on r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e w i th anothercr i m i nal s ent ence . I ns t ead, he s ugges t s , t he di s tr i ctcour ts houl d have r el i ed on the “w eake rl anguage ” i n A ppl i cat i on N ot e Fourt o § 7B 1. 3, w hi ch r ecom m ends i m po si t i on of co nsecuti ve sentences. 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 im p o sed b efo re the o ther. 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) p rov ides , in p art, that the c o u rtsh all co n side r: 5 ( 1) t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e and the hi s t oryand c h a ra c ter istics o f

th e d e fe n d a n t; (2) the n ee d fo r th e se n tenc e im p o sed -- ( A ) t o r efl ectt he s er i ous nes s of the offens e, t o pr om ot e r es pect fort he l aw , and t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entfort he offens e; (B ) to a ffo rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e to c rim in a l co n d u c t; (C ) to p ro tec t th e p u b lic f ro m f u rth e r c rim e s o f

th e d e fe n d a n t; and ( D ) t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d educa t i onal or vocat i onal tr ai ni ng, m edi cal car e, orothercorr ect i onal tr ea tm en t i n the m o st effec ti v e m an n er; (3 ) t h e k in d s o f

s e n te n c e s a v a ila b le ; ... ( 6) t he nee d t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent ence di s par i t i es among defe ndant s w i t h s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho have be en found gui l tyof s i m i l arconduct ; and ( 7) t he nee d t o pr ovi de r es t i tut i on t o anyvi ct i m s of the offens e. -7- U nder18 U . S. C . § 3583( e) ( 2) and ( 3) , w hen a pe r s on vi ol at es the condi t i ons of s upervi s ed r el eas e, the di s tr i ctcour tm aym odi fythe condi t i ons of re le a s e o r r e v o k e th e te rm o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e a n d im p o s e p ri s o n tim e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Kel l ey , 359 F. 3d 1302, 1304 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . I n i m pos i ng a s ent ence fol l ow i ng r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e, the di s tr i ctcour ti s r equi r ed to co n side r bo th the C h ap ter S ev en p o li cystat em en ts as w ell as th e fac tors p rov ided in 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). Uni t ed Stat es v. C or dova , 461 F. 3d 1184, 1188 5 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . T hes e fa ct or s i ncl ude: T he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e; t he hi s t oryand c h a ra c ter istics o f

th e d e fe n d a n t; th e n e e d fo r th e se n ten c e im p o se d to affor d adequa t e det err ence , pr ot ectt he publ i c, and pr ovi de the-8-

defe ndantw i t h neede d educa t i onal orvocat i onal tr ai ni ng, m edi cal ca re o r oth er c o rrecti o n al trea tm en t i n the m o st effec ti v e m an n er; p e rtin e n t g u id e lin e s; p e rtin e n t p o licysta tem e n ts; th e n e e d to a v o id u n w a n te d s e n te n c e d is p a ri tie s ; a n d th e n e e d to p ro v id e re s titu tio n . Id . at1188- 89 ( quot i ng C ontr er as - Mar t i nez , 4 0 9 F . 3 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 4 2 n . 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 )). W e h a v e sa id , “[ t]h e se n ten c in g c o u rt, h o w e v e r, is n o t re q u ire d to c o n sid e r in d iv id u a llye a c h fa c to r liste d in § 3 5 5 3 (a ), n o r is it re q u ire d to re c ite anym agi c w or ds t o s how us t hati tful fi l l ed i t s r es pons i bi l i tyt o be mi ndful of the fac t or s t hatC ongr es s has i ns t ruct ed i tt o cons i derbefor e i s s ui ng a s ent ence . ” Id. at 11 8 9 (qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted).

G ener al l y , w hen the di s t r i ctcour t“pr oper l ycons i der s the r el evant G u id e lin e s ra n g e a n d se n ten c e s th e d e fe n d a n t w ith in th a t ra n g e , the se n ten c e is pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e, ” unl es s the defendant“r ebut [s ] thi s pr es um pt i on by demonstr at i ng t hatt he s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the others ent enci ng fac t or s l ai d outi n § 3553( a) . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 5 (1 0 th C i r . 2006) . E ven i n i ns t ance s w her e a s ent ence i s i m pos ed i n exce s s of that r ecomm ended byC hapt erSeven of the G ui del i nes pol i cys t at ement s , i tw i l l be uphel d “i f i tcan be det erm i ned fr om the r ecor d t o have be en r eas oned and r eas onabl e. ” Un itedS ta tes v . R o drig u ez-Q u in ta n illa , 4 4 2 F .3 d 1 2 5 4 , 1 2 5 8 (1 0 th C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . H ow ever , r egar di ng t he im p o sitio n o f

a c o n se c u tiv e se n ten c e , w e h a v e sa id , “it is u n c lea r p o st- B ooker-9-

w hethers uch dec i s i ons s houl d be r evi ew ed forr eas onabl enes s orforan abus e of di s cr et i on. ” C or dova , 4 6 1 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 8 . W e b eg in b yn o ti n g M r. C eja-M arti n ez d o es n o t con testthe len g th o f e ith er s ent ence , bot h of w hi ch ar e att he l ow end of the appl i cabl e advi s oryG ui del i nes ra n g e s, a n d a re th e re b yp re su m p tiv e lyre a so n a b le. In ste a d , h is a rg u m e n t is pr emi s ed s ol el yon w hethert he di s tr i ctcour ti m pr oper l yor der ed hi s r evoca t i on s ent ence t o run cons ecut i vel yt o hi s others ent ence . W hi l e an i ncongruence m ay e x ist re g a rd in g th e sta n d a rd o f re v iew in c o n se c u tiv e se n ten c in g , itis p lain in th is ca se th at un d er e ith er stan d ard ap p li ed n o ab u se o f d iscreti o n o cc u rred an d M r. C ej a- M ar t i nez’ s cons ecut i ve r evoca t i on s ent ence i s both pr ocedur al l yand s u b s ta n tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . See Cordova , 4 6 1 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 8 . F i rs t , M r. C ej a-M art i nez assert s the d i stri ctcou rt ’s “i nterrupt i on s” pr event ed hi m fr om ful l ypr es ent i ng hi s ar gum entr egar di ng w hetherhi s pr i or fe lo n yu n re a s o n a b ly to o k h is s e n te n c e o u ts id e th e h e a rt la n d o f s im ila r c a s e s . H ow ever , he has notexpl ai ned on appe al w hatfur therar gum ent s he w oul d have m ad e a t th e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g if n o t i n terrup ted. T o the c o n tr ary , the re co rd di s cl os es M r . C ej a- M art i nez r ai s ed the s ame poi nt s i n s uppor tof hi s ar gum ent b e fo re th e d istric t co u rt th a t h e n o w c o n ten d s in h is a p p e a l b rie f h e w a s u n a b le to r ai s e. M or eover , even i f couns el fel tthe nee d t o el abor at e furtheron the i s s ueW hi l e M r . C ej a- M art i nez’ s couns el cl ai m s on appea l t hat§ 7B 1. 3( f) 6 m andat or i l yr equi r es a cons ecut i ve s ent ence , att he s ent enci ng hear i ng couns el a c k n o w led g e d th e G u id e lin e s a re a d v iso rya n d th e d istric t co u rt h a d “ c o n sid e ra b le di s cr et i on” i n det erm i ni ng w hethert o i m pos e a c ons ecut i ve orconcurr ent s e n te n c e . R ., V o l. 2 a t 4 . -10- w i t h addi t i onal poi nt s , anotheroppor tuni typr es ent ed i t s el f w hen the court , pr i or t o i m pos i ng t he r evoca t i on s ent ence , as ked, “A nythi ng el s e?” t o w hi ch M r . C ej aM ar t i nez’ s couns el s t at ed, “N o, Y ourH onor . ” R . , V ol . 2 at16.

S im il arly , w e reject M r. C eja-M arti n ez ’s arg u m en t th e d istri ct co u rt im p ro p e rly a p p lied U .S .S .G . § 7 B 1 .3 (f) in a m a n d a to ry fa sh io n . In ste a d , itis 6 c lea r th e d istric t co u rt re c o g n ize d th a t th e G u id e lin e s a re m e re ly r ecomm endat i ons , as evi dence d byi t s expl i ci tcomm ent s : 1) i tw as r el y i ng on t he pol i cys t at ement s i n C hapt erSeven of the G ui del i nes , i ncl udi ng § 7B 1. 3( f) , w hi ch “r ecomm ended” a cons ecut i ve s ent ence ; 2) s uch a r ecomm endat i on w as

“ a d v iso ry ” ; an d 3 ) it re tain e d d isc re tio n to ru n th e se n ten c e s e ith e r c o n c u rre n tly o r c o n s e c u tiv e ly. R ., V o l. 1 , D o c . 3 a t 2 ; V o l. 2 a t 4 . Fi nal l y , t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notfai l t o m ake ne ces s aryfi ndi ngs pur s uant t o 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) r egar di ng M r . C ej a- M ar t i nez’ s ar gum enthe des erved a con curr ent s entence beca use his pri or aggravated fel on yi ncreased his offense l evel forhi s i l l egal r eentr ys ent ence and hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor es , r es ul t i ng i n aE ss e n tially , M r. C eja- M a rtin e z is ra isin g a n a rg u m e n t ag a in st “ d o u b le 7 count i ng” i n us i ng hi s pr i orfel onyconvi ct i on t o cal cul at e both hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryand offens e l evel . H ow ever , w e have gener al l yuphel d the us e of pr i orconvi ct i ons t o cal cul at e both cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egor i es and s ent ence e n h a n c e m e n ts w h e re th e G u id e lin e s p e rm it s u c h a p p lic a tio n . See Uni t ed Stat es v. A l es s andr oni , 9 8 2 F . 2 d 4 1 9 , 4 2 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. F l or ent i no , 922 F. 2d 1443, 1447- 48 ( 10t h C i r . 1990) . I n thi s cas e, abs entt he pr es ent ence r epor t , w hi ch w as notpr ovi ded on appe al , M r . C ej a- M ar t i nez ha s notdi r ect ed us t o an yG uidel i nes used or m i sappli ed in such a calcul at i on no r otherw i se p e rsu a d e d u s to q u e stio n o u r c lea r a n d lo n g -h e ld p re c e d e n t. -11- s cor e of V for t he r evoca t i on s ent ence and V I for the i l l egal r eentry s ent ence . 7 T hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or yar gum entw as pr es ent ed t o the di s tr i ctcourtats ent enci ng, a n d th e d istric t co u rt c lea rlyrejec ted it w h e n it i m p o se d a n e ig h tee n -m o n th s ent ence t o run cons ecut i vel yt o hi s i l l egal r eentrys ent ence . I n i m pos i ng the se n ten c e , the d istric t co u rt e x p lain e d it w a s a n a p p ro p ria te s e n ten c e b a se d o n its con si derat i on of the natur e of the viol at i on ; M r. C ej a-M art i nez’s charact eri st i cs, i ncl udi ng hi s s i gni fi cantpr i orhi s t oryof vi ol at i ng condi t i ons of pr obat i on; and the s ent enci ng obj ect i ves r equi r ed bys t atut e, i ncl udi ng the nee d t o det erM r . C ej aM ar t i nez a nd ot her s fr om futur e cr i m i nal conduct . A r evi ew of the s ent enci ng hear i ng t r ans cr i ptr evea l s M r . C ej a- M ar t i nez’ s “one fel ony ” ar gum entdi d not di s s uade the di s t r i ctcour tfr om i t s as s es s m ent , and the effec tof thatpr i orfel ony o ffen se in ca lculati n g b o th se n tenc es w as b u t on e o f th e fac tors the d istri ct co u rt cons i der ed, t o w hi ch i tw as notr equi r ed t o gi ve more w ei ghtt han anyother fac t or . T hus , M r . C ej a- M art i nez ha s notdemonstr at ed hi s s i ngl e aggr avat ed fe lo n yo ffe n se , w h e n v iew e d in lig h t o f th e o th e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs, in c lu d in g h is-12-

c rim in a l h isto ryo f

re p e a ted lyv io latin g th e c o n d iti o n s o f h is p ro b a tio n , is s u ffic ie n tly c o m p e llin g fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f m a k in g h is s e n te n c e u n re a s o n a b le . I I I . C oncl us i on Fort hes e r eas ons , w e AF F I RM t he i m pos i t i on of cons ecut i ve s ent ence s by t he di s t r i ctcour ti n s ent enci ng M r . C ej a- M ar t i nez.

E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: W ADE BRO RBY U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge