FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 17, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 14315 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 84 -C R -4 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R A U L C A Z A R E S M E N D O Z A , a .k .a . A d r ia n C a s u r e z M e n d o z a , a .k .a . R a u l M e n d o z a - C a z a r e s , a .k .a . J u a n D a n ie l M e n d o z a , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 17, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

R a ul C a z a r e s M e ndoz a appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e of 144 m onths of

i m pr i s onm e nt f orpos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne a nd i l l e g a l r e e n try i n t o th e U n i t e d St a t e s . 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) , ( b ) ( 2 ) ; 2 1 U . S. C. § 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) ( I I ) . M e ndoz aa r gue s tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s pr oc e dur a l l y a nd s u b s t a n t i v e l y u n r e a s o n ab l e . W e a f f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D M endo za , a M exi ca n ci t i ze n, w as arre st ed af t erpo l i ce offi ce rs di sc ov er ed drugs i n M e ndoz a ’ s ve hi c l e dur i ng a tr a f f i c s t op. M e ndoz aw a s c ha r ge d i n atw oc ounti ndi c tm e ntf

orpos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve orm or e ki l ogr a m s of c o c a i n e a n d i l l e g a l r e e n try a s a p r e v i o u s l y d e p o r t e d i l l e g a l a l i e n . 8 U . S. C. § 1326( a ) , ( b) ( 2) ; 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) ( I I ) . M e ndoz ae nt e r e d a bl i nd pl e a of

gui l ty t o both c ount s . T he di s tr i c tc our te xpl a i ne d t o M e ndoz adur i ng th e p le a c o llo q u y th a t th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s w e r e a d v is o ry a n d th e c o u r t c o u ld i m po se a s ent ence for hi s drug o ff ense up t o the st atut ory m axi m um of l i fe i m p ri so n m en t . T h e d i stri ctco u rtaccep t ed M en d o za’ s p l eas o f g u i l ty. T he pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rtprov i ded a se nt enci ng ra ng e betw ee n 12 1 and 15 1 m on ths of i m pri sonm ent . T he re po rtst at ed thatM endo zahad i l l egal l y e nt er ed the U ni t ed S t at es on fi ve occas i on s bef ore hi s c urre nti l l egal r e e ntry . M e ndoz a a s ke d the c our tt o c r e di thi m f orf i ve a ddi t i ona l m onths tha the3

se rved i n a M exi ca n p ri son aft erhe com pl et ed a 70-m on th sent ence for e ar l i er c o n v ic tio n s r e la te d to h is p o s s e s s io n a n d d is tr ib u tio n o f m e th a m p h e ta m in e . M e ndoz a r e que s t e d tha tthe c our ti m pos e the s t a tut ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e of 120 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t. T he di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d M e ndoz at o tw o c onc urr e ntt e rm s of 144 m onths o f im p r is o n m e n t f

o llo w e d b y te rm s o f

f iv e a n d th r e e y e a r s o f

s u p e rv is e d p r o b a tio n . T h e co u rtex p l ai n ed th at“ [t ] h e m ax i m u m g u i d el i n e ran g e w o u l d b e 1 5 1 m o n th s; and i n fi gu ri ng the 14 4, [i thad] t aken i nt o acc ou nt. . . the 5 m on ths [M endo za ] se rved on a pri or se nt ence i n M exi co. ” T he courtal so expl ai ned thatthe se nt ence , w hi c h w a s “ a l i tt l e bi tabove the m a nda t ory m i ni m um , l i tt l e bi tbe l ow the m a xi m um ” s e rve d a s a “ de t e rr e ntt o f utur e c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty ; puni s h[ e d] the d e f e n d a n t c e r ta in ly ap p r o p r ia te ly a n d p r o te c t[ e d ] th e p u b lic .” M e n d o z ao b je c te d to the s e nt e nc e a s unr e a s onabl e a nd s t a t e d tha t“ as e nt e nc e a tthe l ow e nd of the g u id e lin e r a n g e , 1 2 1 m o n th s [ w a s ] ap p r o p r ia te .” I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r e vi e w the f

i na l s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc our tf or r e a s o n ab le n e s s . U n ite d S ta te s v . W in in g e a r , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . R e vi e w f orr e a s onabl e ne s s i s a de f e r e nt i a l s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w f orabus e of di sc re t i on . G al l v. U ni t ed S t at es , 12 8 S . C t . 58 6, 59 7 (20 07 ).4 I I I . DI S CUS S I ON M e ndoz a a r gue s tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e . M e ndoz aa r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t“ f

a i l e d t o t a ke i nt o a c c ountthe pa r s i m ony pr i nc i pl e [ of s e c t i on 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ] w h e n im p o s in g s e n te n c e ” a n d h is s e n te n c e is p r o c e d u r a lly u n r e a s o n ab le because the di stri ctcourtdi d n otadequat el y e xp l ai n w hy i tdi d n oti m po se a l es se r s e n te n c e o rm e n tio n a “f a c to rin a g g r a v a tio n ” to ju s tif y th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d . M endo zaal so cont ends thathi s s ent ence i s s ub st ant i vel y unrea sonabl e. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tse nt ence d M endo za w i thi n the gu i del i ne ra ng e. M endo zahas notes t abl i shed thatthe di stri ctcourt com m i tt ed a procedural error. T he di stri ctcourtconsi dere d the st atut ory f ac t ors a nd purpos e s of

s e nt e nc i ng a nd r e a s onabl y de t e rm i ne d tha ta s e nt e nc e of 144 m onths of

i m pr i s onm e ntw a s s uf

f i c i e ntbutnotgr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry t o a c hi e ve thos e purpos e s . 28 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ; G a l l , 128 S . C t . a t597. A l though “ [ w ] e do no ti n thi s c i rc ui tpres um e r ea sonabl e ase nt ence w i thi n the prop er l y c al cul at ed G ui del i nes r ange, ” U ni t ed S t at es v. C am pb el l , 49 1 F . 3d 13 06 , 13 13 (11th C i r. 20 07 ), M endo za ’ s s ent ence i s s ub st ant i vel y r ea sonabl e. T he di stri ctcourt e x p la in e d th a t th e s e n te n c e s e rv e d th e s ta tu to ry p u rp o s e s o f d e te rr e n c e , a d e q u a te pu ni shm ent , and p rot ec t i on of the pu bl i c. S ee G al l , 12 8 S . C t . at59 7. M endo za had i l l egal l y e nt er ed the U ni t ed S t at es on fi ve occas i on s a nd com m i tt ed se vera l5

drug cr i m es w hi l e i n thi s c ou ntry , and the di stri ctcourtt oo k i nt o con si dera t i on that M e ndoz a s pe ntf

i ve a ddi t i ona l m onths i n aM e xi c a n pr i s on f orhi s pr e vi ous drug c o n v ic tio n . M e n d o z a ’s s e n te n c e is r e a s o n ab le . I V . CONCL US I ON M en d o za’ s sen t en ce i s A FFI R M ED .