1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 09- 4505

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. A N T O N IO T O V A R , J R ., A ppel l ant

____________ APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E M ID D L E D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C . C r i m . N o. 1- 09- cr - 00126- 001 ) D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J ul y15, 2010 B efore: F U E N T E S , V A N A S K IE an d W E IS, C i rcui tJudg es.

Fi l ed: J ul y22, 2010

____________ OP I NI ON W E I S, C i r cui tJ udge.

D e f e n d a n t A n to n io T o v a r, Jr., w h o w a s d e p o rte d f ro m th e U n ited S tate s in 2004, pl ed gui l tyt o i l l egal l yr e- ent er i ng the countryaft erhavi ng been c onvi ct ed of a n2

agg ravat ed fe l on y . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6. T he D i stri ctC ou rtsent enced him t o 5 7 m on ths’ i m pr i s onm ent , a ca l cul at i on bel ow the i ni t i al G ui del i ne r ange butw i thi n the r ange ul t i m at el ydet erm i ned bythe C our t . D efe ndantnow cont ends thathi s s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o s t at e an a dequat e r eas on fordecl i ni ng t o gr anta var i ance under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) bas ed on “f as t - tr ack” s ent enci ng. W e w i l l aff i r m the s ent ence i m pos ed. I n det erm i ni ng the i ni t i al G ui del i ne r ange, the D i s tr i ctC our tarr i ved atan ad justed o ff

en se lev el of

2 1 , w h ich, w h en ap p li ed to the d ef en d an t’ s crim inal h ist o ry c a teg o ryo f

V , cu lm in a ted in a ra n g e o f 7 0 -8 7 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. T he D i stri ctC ou rtrevi ew ed the defen dan t ’s requestfor a reduct i on becau se i f he w er e i n a bor ders t at e courtr oom , he w oul d be el i gi bl e forfas t - tr ack s ent enci ng and a decr eas e i n the adj us t ed G ui del i ne off ens e l evel . I n deny i ng the var i ance , the di s tr i ct j udge ac know l edged thats he had the di s cr et i on t o “gi ve i t [, ] ” s ee U ni t ed St at es v. A rr el ucea-Z am ud i o, 58 1 F . 3d 14 2, 14 8-49 (3d C i r. 20 09 ), bu tdecli ned t o d o so b ecause s he bel i eved thatgr ant i ng the var i ance “w oul d cr eat e . . . a gr eatdi s par i ty ” betw een other s s he had s ent ence d and def endant . M or eover , the di s tr i ctj udge bel i eved that d e f e n d a n t w a s “ lik e ly to a tte m p t r e -e n tr yin to th e U n ite d S ta te s ille g a lly in th e f u tu re .” H ow ever , det erm i ni ng thatthe def endant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t oryhad bee n o v e rs ta te d , th e D is tr ic t C o u rts u a s p o n te re d u c e d it f ro m a c a te g o ry V to a c a te g o ry IV . A s a re s u lt, th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s G u id e lin e ra n g e b e c a m e 5 1 -7 1 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t.3 O urr evi ew of the r ecor d r evea l s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tm ade “ an ind ividu ali ze d asse ssm en t bas ed o n the f ac ts prese n ted, . . . jud g e[ d ] th eir i m p o rtu n d er § 3553( a) [, ] ” s ee i d. at155, and arr i ved ata r eas onabl e s ent ence . W e ar e convi nced thatthe D is tr ic t C o u rtc o m m itte d n o re v e rs ib le e rr o r i n th e d e f e n d a n t’ s s e n te n c e . A c c o rd in g ly, th e J u d g m e n t o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rtw ill b e a f f ir m e d .