United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3203

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Alejandro Acosta, also known as Alex

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

 ____________

 Submitted: April 17, 2020

Filed: July 20, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Upon his release from prison in July 2014, Alejandro Acosta began a five-year

term of supervised release originating from his conviction on drug conspiracy and

firearm charges. On February 13, 2015, Acosta, a permanent resident of the United

States, contacted his probation officer in Iowa and advised his officer that he had
been summoned to a meeting with an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

officer on February 16, 2015. Fearing that he would be deported to Mexico, Acosta

did not report to the ICE meeting. On March 19, 2015, Acosta telephoned his

probation officer and acknowledged that he failed to appear for the ICE interview and

advised that he was residing in Mexico. He had no further contact with probation

officers for the next four and one-half years and his whereabouts were unknown.

In September 2019, Acosta was arrested in Arizona after a traffic stop. 

Acosta’s supervised release was revoked after his admission of two supervised

release violations: failure to notify probation of a residence change and failure to

report as required to his probation officer. The parties agreed that the United States

Sentencing Guidelines range for the two Grade “C” violations was 5 to 11 months. 

The United States recommended an upward variance to 24 months and Acosta

recommended a within-Guidelines range sentence. The district court1 sentenced

Acosta to a term of imprisonment of 24 months to be followed by a term of

supervised release of five years.

Acosta contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the

district court failed to give adequate weight to the fact that these are Acosta’s only

violations of supervised release, he has committed no new law violations, and, when

apprehended during the traffic stop, he possessed no drugs or firearms. He further

asserts that the district court erred in giving significant weight to Acosta’s

immigration status.

“We review the reasonableness of [a] revocation sentence for abuse of

discretion.” United States v. Asalati, 615 F.3d 1001, 1006 (8th Cir. 2010). In

reviewing a sentence, we take “into account the totality of the circumstances.” Gall

1The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

-2-
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d

455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). A court abuses its discretion if it “(1) fails to

consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight; (2) gives

significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only

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

Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e) (“The court may, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a)

. . . revoke a term of supervised release, and require the defendant to serve in prison

all or part of the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that

resulted in such term of supervised release . . . .”). 

While the district court, in explaining its decision to vary upward, highlighted

Acosta’s criminal history and the nature and circumstances of his supervised release

violations, including his absconding for four and one-half years, the court also heard

argument touching on Acosta’s record while on supervised release and had before it

the probation office’s Supervised Release Worksheet and Recommendation, which

summarizes Acosta’s performance while under supervision. Further, Acosta’s

attorney discussed Acosta’s family circumstances, argued that Acosta absconded out

of fear of deportation, and pointed out that Acosta had no drugs or firearms in his

possession when he was apprehended. 

The district court acted within its discretion in varying upward. See United

States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (providing that the district

court’s upward variance is reviewed for abuse of discretion). “The district court has

wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some factors

greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence.” United States v.

Borromeo, 657 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Bridges, 569

F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009)). That the district court gave greater weight to some

factors and less weight to those factors urged by Acosta does not show an abuse of

discretion. See United States v. Lewis, 593 F.3d 765, 773 (8th Cir. 2010) (“The

-3-
district court considered [defendant’s] arguments for a downward variance but

appropriately exercised its discretion in rejecting them.”).

 

Finally, the record reflects that the district court’s sentencing decision was

ultimately driven by Acosta’s criminal history and the need for deterrence rather than

Acosta’s alien status or the possibility that he would be deported as a result of his

federal convictions. Moreover, we reject Acosta’s contention that alien status is an

improper or irrelevant sentencing factor. See Asalati, 615 F.3d at 1006-07. Accordingly,

we reject Acosta’s contention that the district court considered an improper or

irrelevant sentencing factor. Asalati, 615 F.3d at 1007 (“Although the district court

referenced [defendant’s] alien status and expressed frustration with the inability to

remove him, the district court’s sentencing determination, properly viewed, was not

based on [defendant’s] alien status or removability . . . .”).

Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-4-