09
- 52 68
- cr

U SA v. R eyes - P ars i no U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER Ru lings by summary orde r d o n ot h ave prece den tial ef f ect. Citatio n to a summary orde r filed on or after Janu ary 1, 2007 , is permitted and is g overn ed by Federal Rule o f A ppe llate Proced ure 32. 1 a nd this c ourt’s Loc al R ule 3 2.1 .1. Whe n c iting a su m m ar y or de r in a d ocumen t filed w ith th is cou rt, a party must cite either the Federal A ppe ndixor an electron ic da taba se (w ith th e n otation “su mmary orde r”). A partycitinga summary orde r must serve a c opyof it on an y p arty not repre sented by co u n se l. At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, at 500 Pea rl Street, in the City

of Ne w York, on the 1 day

of De cembe r, two thousand ten. st Pr e se nt: RA L PH K . WI NT ER, G U ID O C A LA B R E S I, ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, Circuit Judges ,

____________________________________________________________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Appellee , - v - No. 09-5268-c r JORG E RE YE S- PAR SI

NO , a lso kn own a s Re ne e An ima s, a lso kn own a s Re ne An ima s, Defendant-

Appellant
.

____________________________________________________________ F or De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt: Dar rell B . Fields, F eder al Def ender s of New York, Inc., Appe als Bur eau, N ew Yor k, N.Y. For Appellee : Amir H. Toossi, Assistant United States Attorney (Susan Corker

y , on the brief

), for L oretta E. L

y nch, United States Attorne y for the Easter n District of Ne w York, B rookly n, N.Y.Def endant- Appellant informe d the district court that his true na me is Rene Animas a

nd * acc ording ly

we r efe r to him by

that name. 2 Appea l from the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of Ne w York (Cog an, J. ). ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AN D D EC RE ED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. Def endant- Appellant Rene Animas appea ls from an Oc tober 26, 2009 judgment of the * United States District Court for the Ea stern District of N ew Yor k (Cog an, J. ) e nt er edfo l l o wi n g a ple a of guil ty to i lle g a l r e e ntr

y in v iol atio n o f 8 U. S.C. §§ 13 26 (a) a nd 13 26 (b )( 2) . We a ssume the par ties’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts, proc edura l history

of this case , and the sp e c if ic atio n o f i ssu e s o n a

pp e a l. The district cour

t sentence d Animas principally to 42 months’ imprisonm ent, and Animas now cha lleng es the substantive re asonable ness of that sente nce. O ur re view of the district court’s sentenc e for

rea sonablene ss “amounts to review for a buse of discr etion.” United States v. Cav e ra , 5 5 0 F. 3 d

1 8 0 , 1 8 7 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( enb an c) (c i t i n g Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007)) . Substantive determinations shall be set a side “only in exceptional case s where the trial court’s de cision ‘ca

nnot be locate d within the rang e of pe rmissible decisions.’” Id. at 189 (qu o t i n g United States v. Rigas , 4 90 F .3 d 2 08 , 2 38 (2 d Ci r. 20 07 )) . “ [W]e d o n ot p re sume that a Guidelines-r ang e sente nce is re asonable ,” but rather “ take into ac count the totality of the circ umstances, g iving due defe renc e to the sente ncingjudge ’s exercise of discretion, and be aring in mind the inst itutional advantag es of district cour ts.” Id. at 190. Animas first contends that § 2L 1.2 of the Guide lines irrationally over- punishes the nonviolent act of illeg al re entry . Section 2L 1 provides for a base offe nse leve l of 8, with a 16-3

po int up wa rd a dju st i f t

he de po rt atio n o c c ur

re d a ft e r t he a lie n w a s c onvic te d o f a fe lony that is a “crime of violence .” U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.2(b)( 1)(A) & c mt. n.1(B) (iii). It is undisput ed that Animas’s prior c onviction for assa ult qualifies as such a

crime. H e argues that the re sulting of fe ns e le ve l of

24 is “ ir ratio na l” fo r t

wo re a so ns : it

do ub le c ounts his c ri min a l hi sto ry and is excessive for a

nonviolent offense in comparison with the compa rable or lower

offe nse leve ls of
cer tain violent offense s. Wi th respec t to the double countingargument, “[i] t is well-established in t his Cir c uit

that a dis tr ic t c ourt

do e s n ot e rr

wh e n it us e s a pr ior of fe ns e to c a lc ulate bo th the of fe ns e le ve l and

the c ri min a l hi sto ry

c ate g or y to d e te rm ine the c or

re c t Guid e lin e s r ang e in unlawful re entry

case s.” Un ite d S

tates v . P e re ira , 4 65 F .3 d 5 15 , 5 22 (2 d Ci r. 20 06 ). No r i s An ima s’ s se nte nc e su

bs tanti ve ly

unre a so na

ble ba se d o n it s o ff

e ns e le ve l vi s- à -v is the of fe ns e levels of va

rious other c rimes. Although illega l ree ntry is a nonviolent offe nse, we cannot sa y that it is i rrational to increa se significantly its relatively

low base of

fense level of 8 f

or defe ndants who have prior violent fe lony convictions. See, e .g. , United States v. Montague , 376 F. App’ x 124, 127 (2d Cir. 2010) (summar y order) (“ The Sentenc ing Commission, and the district court, ar e entitled to make the ir own judg ments about the nee d for punishment and deter renc e, and the relative seriousness of dif fer ent offe nses.”)
. An ima s n e xt argue s th at hi s se nte nc e is unr e a so na ble be c a us e de fe nd ants in d istri c ts w ith
so -c a lle d “ fa st- tr a c k” dis po sit ion pr ogra ms r e c e ive muc h lo we r s e nte nc e s. Ho we ve r, thi s
argume nt i s f

or e c los e d, a s w e have he ld “ that a dis tr ic t c ourt ’s re fu sa l to a dju st a se nte nc e to compensate for the absenc e of a fast-tra ck program doe s not make a se ntence unrea sonable.” Un ite d S tates v . M e jia , 461 F.3d 158, 164 ( 2d Cir. 2006). Any argument that fast-tra ck ver sus non-fa st-trac k disparities ought to be taken into ac count under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s pa rsimony4

c la us e is l ike wi se un ava ili ng , b e c a us e “ de fe nd ants in f

a st- tr a c k d ist

ri c ts [a re ] not sim ila rl y situated to those in non-fast-tr ack districts.” Un ite d S tates v . H e nd ry , 522 F.3d 239, 242 ( 2d Cir. 2 0 0 8 ) ( p er

curi am ) ( ci t i n g Me

jia , 461 F.3d at 162). Finally , Animas argues that his sentenc e is unrea sonable in lig ht of the § 3553(a ) fa ctors. Howeve r, the district cour t expl icitly

considere d defe ndant’s arguments and took a diff ere nt view of the we ight of

the § 3553(a ) fa ctors in this case, pa rticularly with respec t to the need to dete r Animas from re cidivism. This i s prec isely the sort of we ighingthat is entrusted to the discre tion of the district cour

t, and we w ill not s econd guess the district cour t’s deter mination on review. We have c onsidered a ll of Animas’s re maining a rguments and find them to be without merit. Acc ording ly , for the f oreg oing r easons, the judgment of the district cour t is hereby AF F IRM ED
. FOR THECOURT: CATHERI

NE O’H AGAN WOLFE, CL ERK