[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-13947

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00130-WSD-RGV-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEONARDO JUAN ALCOSER-LOPEZ,

a.k.a. Leonardo Alcoser,

a.k.a. Leonardo Lopez,

a.k.a. Leonardo Arnulfo Alcoser,

a.k.a. Leonardo Alcacer,

a.k.a. Juan Alcoser,

a.k.a. Juan Carlos Alcoser,

a.k.a. Juan Carlos Leobardo Alcoser,

a.k.a. Juan Lebardo Alcoser,

a.k.a. Juan Leobardo Alcoser,

a.k.a. Juan Leovardo Alcoser,

a.k.a. Leonel Arnulfo Amendares,

a.k.a. Leonel Enurfo Amendares,

a.k.a. Leobardo Juan Carlos,

a.k.a. Leonel Hernendez Gonzalez,

a.k.a. Leonardo Martinez,

a.k.a. Leonardo Juan Martinez,

a.k.a. Daniel Cruz Perez,

Case: 17-13947 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Page: 1 of 8 
2

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(May 29, 2018)

Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Defendant appeals his 78-month sentence, imposed following his guilty plea 

to illegal reentry by a previously deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) 

and (b)(2). On appeal, Defendant challenges the substantive reasonableness of his 

sentence. After careful review, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, was convicted in California in 

July 2006 on charges of second-degree robbery, second-degree commercial 

burglary, and grand theft. He was sentenced to 180 days’ imprisonment and 

3 years of probation as to the robbery and 90 days’ imprisonment and 3 years of 

probation as to the burglary and theft offenses. Upon completion of his sentences, 

he was removed to Mexico on February 7, 2007. 

Within one month after his removal, he unlawfully reentered the country: a 

fact we know because Defendant was arrested in California on a probation 

Case: 17-13947 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Page: 2 of 8 
3

violation warrant based on the above robbery offense and was sentenced to 

90 days’ imprisonment. He was removed to Mexico for a second time on May 31, 

2007. He returned again to the United States, and his probation was once again

revoked on January 17, 2008. This time he was sentenced to two years’ 

imprisonment. 

Then, in November 2009, Defendant was arrested in California and later

pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and false identification to peace 

officers. Upon completion of a two-year imprisonment sentence, Defendant was 

removed for a third time to Mexico in July 2011. 

Defendant again unlawfully returned to the United States and, in August 

2016, he was arrested in Georgia on charges of simple assault and terroristic 

threats. After being transferred to the custody of Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, Defendant was eventually charged in the present case with illegal 

reentry by a previously deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 

(b)(2). He pled guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement. 

Applying the 2016 Guidelines, the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) 

assigned Defendant a base offense level of 8 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. 

Defendant received an 8-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(2)(B) because,

before he was ordered removed from the United States for the first time, he had 

sustained a felony conviction for which the sentence imposed was two years or 

Case: 17-13947 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Page: 3 of 8 
4

more. Specifically, the PSR stated that the sentence imposed for the robbery 

offense totaled more than two years with the inclusion of the imprisonment terms 

imposed following probation revocation for that offense.

1

 Defendant also received 

an 8-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(3)(B) because he engaged in criminal 

conduct that resulted in a conviction for a felony offense for which the sentence 

imposed was two years or more after he was ordered removed from the United 

States. With a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, his total offense 

level was 21. Defendant was assigned 11 criminal history points, resulting in a 

criminal history category V. Based on a total offense level of 21 and a criminal 

history category of V, Defendant’s guideline range was 70 to 87 months’

imprisonment. 

At the sentencing hearing, the district court confirmed that the guideline 

range was 70 to 87 months’ imprisonment. Defendant requested a downward 

variance, asserting that the 8-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(2)(B) 

overrepresented the seriousness of his robbery conviction because he only received 

a six-month imprisonment sentence for that offense. Specifically, he asserted that 

the enhancement applied not because of the original six-month sentence but

because of the additional terms of imprisonment he received after his probation 

was revoked, all of which totaled more than two years’ imprisonment. 

 1 For purposes of § 2L1.2, the term sentence imposed “includes any term of imprisonment given 

upon revocation of probation, parole, or supervised release.” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment. (n.2). 

Case: 17-13947 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Page: 4 of 8 
5

The Government recommended an 85-month sentence, emphasizing 

Defendant’s extensive criminal history and the fact that although he had been 

deported several times, he had repeatedly flouted the law by returning to the 

United States. After considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court 

sentenced Defendant to 78 months’ imprisonment. Defendant objected to the 

substantive reasonableness of the sentence and this appeal followed. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Using a two-step process, we review the reasonableness of a district court’s 

sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888, 892 (11th 

Cir. 2014). First, we determine whether a sentence is procedurally reasonable. Id.

After determining that a sentence is procedurally sound, we then examine whether 

the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances 

and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.2

 Id. The party challenging the sentence bears 

the burden of showing that it is unreasonable. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 

1179, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008). 

 2 The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history 

and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to 

promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for 

deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed 

education or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the 

Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; 

(9) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution 

to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Case: 17-13947 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Page: 5 of 8 
6

Defendant has not met his burden of showing that his sentence is 

substantively unreasonable. For starters, his 78-month sentence was within the 

guideline range of 70 to 87 months’ imprisonment. “Although we do not 

automatically presume a sentence within the guidelines range is reasonable, we 

ordinarily expect a sentence within the Guidelines range to be reasonable.” United 

States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted) (alteration 

accepted). Defendant’s sentence is also well below the statutory maximum of 20 

years’ imprisonment. See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th 

Cir. 2008) (stating that a sentence below the statutory maximum is an indicator of 

reasonableness). 

Moreover, Defendant’s 78-month sentence was supported by several 

§ 3553(a) factors. As noted by the district court, the 78-month sentence was 

necessary to promote respect for the law and to provide specific and general 

deterrence. Indeed, the district court noted that Defendant had not only illegally 

entered the United States several times after being deported, but he had also 

committed crimes that posed a danger to society when he returned. The court 

emphasized that a sentence of incarceration would force Defendant to comply with 

the law and would specifically deter him from illegally returning to the United 

States again. The court further noted the importance of imposing a sentence that 

took into account Defendant’s history and characteristics. 

Case: 17-13947 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Page: 6 of 8 
7

The record reveals no clear error of judgment by the district court in its 

weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, nor does the record indicate that the court 

imposed an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 

(11th Cir. 2010). We are also not persuaded by Defendant’s argument that the 

district court abused its discretion by not granting a downward variance based on

Application Note 5 to § 2L1.2 of the Guidelines. Defendant received an 8-level 

enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(2)(B) because he had a prior felony conviction for 

robbery for which the sentence imposed was more than 2 years. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2(b)(2)(B). Defendant does not argue that the enhancement was incorrectly 

applied. Instead, he asserts that the district court should have varied downward 

based on Application Note 5 because the enhancement overstates the seriousness 

of the robbery offense.

3

 

Application Note 5 to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 provides that:

There may be cases in which the offense level provided by an 

enhancement in subsection (b)(2) and (b)(3) substantially understates 

or overstates the seriousness of the conduct underlying the prior 

offense, because (A) the length of the sentence imposed does not 

reflect the seriousness of the prior offense; . . . or (C) the time actually 

served was substantially less than the length of the sentence imposed 

for the prior offense. In such a case, a departure may be warranted. 

 3 As Defendant concedes, Application Note 5 refers to the imposition of a departure, not a 

variance, when the enhancement overstates the underlying conduct of the offense. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2, comment. (n.5). Defendant does not argue that the district court abused its discretion by 

not granting a departure, nor would we have jurisdiction to review such a determination if he had 

made that argument. See United States v. Pressley, 345 F.3d 1205, 1209 (11th Cir. 2003) 

(explaining that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s discretionary decision not to 

depart under the Sentencing Guidelines). 

Case: 17-13947 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Page: 7 of 8 
8

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment. (n.5). 

Here, the district court considered Defendant’s argument concerning 

Application Note 5, but rejected it. Indeed, the court acknowledged Defendant’s 

original six-month sentence for robbery, but suggested that the application note did

not take into account circumstances such as those presented here. That is, 

Defendant had failed to abide by the terms of his probation after completing an 

imprisonment sentence. The court further characterized as “egregious” the fact 

that Defendant violated his probation twice after being deported to Mexico, and 

noted that the short sentence Defendant received for the robbery offense did not 

deter him from committing further criminal conduct. 

Although Defendant’s original sentence for robbery may have only been six 

months’ imprisonment, the two-year imprisonment sentence imposed following his 

second probation revocation reflects the serious nature of Defendant’s failure to 

conform his actions to the law. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by declining to vary downward from the guideline range. See United 

States v. Willis, 560 F.3d 1246, 1251 (11th Cir. 2009) (reviewing for 

reasonableness the denial of defendant’s request for a variance). 

Based on the above reasons, Defendant has not met his burden of showing 

that his 78-month sentence was substantively unreasonable. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 17-13947 Date Filed: 05/29/2018 Page: 8 of 8