## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 0- 18 50

__ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

. Edu ard o M ejia- Pere z, *

* Defen da nt - App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Sub m it te d: Decem

be r 15 , 20 10 Fil ed : M arch 25 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re LOKEN, ARNOLD , and BYE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _ LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Edu ard o Meji a-Pe rez, a ci ti zen of Mex ic o pr ev io us ly rem ov ed fro m th e Uni te d
St at es fo ur ti m es , il le ga ll y re e n t e r e d in Octo be r 20 08

. He cam e to th e at te nt io n of
im m ig rat io n of

fic ia ls in Nov em

be r 20 09 aft er be in g a rres te d fo r dr un k dr iv in g in
S o ut h Dak ot a. Meji a-Pe rez was ch arg ed wit h an d pl ead ed gu il ty to il le ga l r e e n t r y aft er de po rta ti on in vi ol at io n of 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m 1
ab ov e th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge to twen ty m on th s in priso n. Meji a-Pe rez ap pe al s,
arg ui ng th e se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le . W e aff irm.

The Hon or ab le Ch arl es B. Ko r nm an n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

.The Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t as se ss ed Meji a

- P e rez on e cri m in al

h i s t o r y p o i nt fo r a Feb ru ary 20 08 DUI co nv ic ti on

. Thi s pl aced hi m in cri m in a l
hi st or y cat eg or y I, res ul ti ng in an ad vi so ry gu id el in es se nt en ci ng ran ge of zero to si x

mo n t h s in pr is on

. Two week s be fo re th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , t he di st ric t co ur t s e n t

co un se l t he fol lo win g M em or an du m :

Thi s de fen da nt ha s pr ev io us ly be en de po r t ed or se nt ba ck

nu m ero us ti m es . If de po rte d a ga in , he wi ll no do ub t b e b ack

.

Th i s w i l l pr ov id e no ti ce th at I wil l be co ns id eri ng an up ward de pa rtu re o r an up ward va ria nc e in th is cas e. I be li ev e hi s cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y un de rs ta te s th e act ua l cri m in al hi st or y a s w e ll as th e li k e li ho od th at he wil l co m m it ot he r cri m es

. In ad di ti on , th e st at ut or y fact or s se t fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 cal l fo r a lo ng er se nt en ce th an cal le d fo r by the gu id el in es

.

At se nt en ci ng , wit ho ut ob jecti on , th e di st ric t co u rt de te rm in ed th e ad vi so ry

ran ge as zero to si x m on th s in pr is on

. The go ve rn m en t ur ge d a se nt en ce wit hi n th at

ran ge , as it ag reed to do in th e pl ea ag reem en t. Defen se co un se l, no ti ng th at Meji aPere z wou ld be de po rte d i mm e di at el y aft er rel eas e fro m cu st od y , a nd th at hi s pr io r of fen se s were no n- vi ol en t, arg u e d th at a fo ur -to -fi ve -m on th se nt en ce eq ua l to ti m e

se rv ed wou ld refl ect th e se rio us ne ss of th e cri m e an d be su ffi ci en t bu t no t gr eat er th an

ne ces sa ry to acco m pl is h t he pu rp os es set for th in 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a).

In im po si ng it s se nt en ce, th e di st ric t co ur t reci te d Meji a-Pe rez’s vi ol at io ns of
th e im m ig rat io n l aws no t re fle ct ed in hi s cr im in al hi st or y cat eg or y :

On Apr il 20
, 20 05
, he was gr an te d a vo lu nt ary ret ur n to Mex ic o, vi a th e Lared o, Tex as , Por t o f Ent ry

.

On Mar ch 27
, 20 07
, he was or de red rem ov ed by an im m ig rat io n jud ge an d was rem ov ed th ro ug h Lar ed o o n Ap ril 2n d, 2 00 8.

-2

-On May 3, 20 08
, ab ou t a m on th la te r, he was is su ed an ex pe di te d

rem ov al fro m t h e Uni te d St at es an d was rem ov ed on May 4, 20 08
, th ro ug h Ari zo na

.

On Aug us t 13 th
, 20 08
, he was is su ed an ex pe di te d rem ov al fro m th e Uni te d St at es , a n d was rem ov ed vi a th e Tuc so n, Ariz on a, Po rt of Ent ry on Aug us t 15
, 20 08

. And he ha s ad m it te d, th en , reen te rin g th e Uni te d S ta te s ab ou t t wo m on th s l at er, n am el y , Octo be r 28 th of 2 00 8.

So th is is li ke a rev ol vi ng do or , an d he ha sn ’t le arn ed an y th in g in th es e p rev io us ep is od es

.

His Cri m in al His to ry Cat eg or y of I un de rs ta te s th e act ua l cri m in al hi st or y , as well as th e li ke li ho od th at he wil l co m m it fu rth er cri m es

. In
ot he r wor ds
, he is pr ob ab ly go in g to co m e rig ht ba ck he re agai n. And
, so , in th at sen se , an u pwa rd de pa rtu re i s war ran te d.

I’m go in g t o s en te nc e h im

to 20 m on th s o f cu st od y

. . . .

On ap pe al
, Meji a-Pe rez pr es en ts a si ng le is su e fo r ou r rev ie w: “ Did th e di st ric t

co ur t ab us e it s di sc ret io n whe n it im po se d a s e n t e n c e gr eat er th an th e se nt en ce
sp eci fie d in th e ap pl ic ab le gu i d e l i ne ran ge ? ” W e rev ie w wit h gr eat de fere nc e th e

reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. “ [I]t wil l be th e u n us ua l cas e whe n we rev ers e a di st ric t c o u r t s e n te nc e -- whe th er wit hi n, ab ov e, or be lo w th e
ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ran ge -- as su b s t a n t iv el y un reas on ab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 5 72 F.3d 45 5, 4 64 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) (en ba nc ).

Thi s is no t th at “ un us ua l cas e

. ” Th e di st ric t co ur t ap pr op ria te ly to ok in to

acco un t Meji a-Pe rez’s pr io r il le ga l reen tri es th at were no t pr os ecu te d. Ru va lc av aPere z, 56 1 F.3 d 88 3, 88 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Co ns i s t e n t w i t h ou r pr io r de ci si on s, th e

co ur t fo un d t ha t Meji a-Pe rez’s im m ig rat io n hi st or y was “ ev id en ce of ob vi ou s in co rri gi bi li ty” an d co nc lu de d th at “ le ni en cy ha s no t be en effe ct iv e.” Uni te d St at es v. Walk in g Eagl e, 55 3 F.3d 65 4, 65 7 (8t h Cir. 2 00 9) (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . In t he se

-3

-ci rcu m st an ces , it was no t un reas on ab le fo r th e se nt en ci ng co ur t to de m on st rat e wit h

an up ward de pa rtu re or va ria nc e th at co nt em pt uo us di sr eg ard fo r ou r im m ig rat io n la ws can ha v e s eri ou s co ns eq ue nc es

. Meji a-Pe rez co m pl ai ns th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to ex pl ai n it s co ns id erat io n of th e se nt en ci ng fact o r s se t fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). As us ua l, th is co nt en ti on is wit ho ut m eri t. The co ur t ex pl ic it ly st at ed th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s it co ns id ered m os t si gn ifi can t to it s de ci si on

. W e do no t req ui re

co ur ts to “ m ech an ic al ly recit e” t he ot he r fac to rs . Uni te d Stat es v. Brown
, 62 7 F .3d
10 68 , 10 73 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

Meji a-Pe rez fu rth er arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d an up ward de pa rtu re
pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G § 4A1 .3 bu t di d no t an al y ze th e types of in fo rm at io n fo rm in g th e ba si s fo r th e de pa rtu re, se e § 4A1 .3( a ) ( 2 )
, a n d di d no t de te rm in e th e ex te nt of th e de pa rtu re “ by us in g, as a refe ren ce, th e cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y ap pl ic ab le to de fen da n ts who se

. . . li ke li ho od to reci di va te m os t cl os el y res em bl es th at of th e de fen da nt ’s,” § 4 A1.3 (a)( 4) (A). Thes e are cla im s o f pr oc ed ur al erro r un de r Gal l v

. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38
, 51 (2 00 7)

. The y were no t rai se d in th e di st ric t co ur t. Nor

were th ey en co m

pa ss ed in Meji a-Pe rez’s st at em en t of th e on e is su e pr es en te d fo r ou r

rev ie w on ap pe al -- th at hi s s e n t e n c e was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le -- as Ru le
2 8 ( a ) ( 5 ) of th e Fed eral Ru le s of App el la te Pro ced ur e req ui res

. W e de cl in e t o

co ns id er an is su e th at ha s no t be en pr op erl y pr es en te d to ei th er co ur t. See Barr et t v. Detr oi t Hea di ng , LLC, 31 1 F . App ’x. 77 9, 7 98 (6t h C ir. 2 00 9) (un pu bl is he d)

.

Mo reo ve r, if we di d rev ie w th e is su e, it wou ld be fo r pl ai n erro r. See Pu ck et t

v. Uni te d St at es , 12 9 S. Ct

. 14 23
, 14 28 -2 9 (2 00 9)

. To ob ta in pl ai n erro r rel ie f, Meji aPere z m us t sh ow a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y he wou ld ha ve rece iv ed a le ss er s en te nc e bu t fo r th e erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Mi rel es , 61 7 F.3 d 10 09
, 10 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), cert

. de ni ed
, --- S. Ct

. ----, 20 11 W L 58 92 79 (2 01 1)

. He can no t m eet th is he av y bu rd en

. Th e d i s tri ct co ur t’s pr es en te nc e Mem or an du m ga ve no ti ce it was co ns id eri ng a n
up ward de pa rtu re or va r i a n c e

. At se nt en ci ng , th e co ur t st at ed th at Meji a-Pe rez’s

un de rs ta te d cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y an d “ th e li ke li ho od th at he wil l co m m it fu rth er

-4

-cri m es ” -- a va ria nc e co ns id erat io n u n d er § 35 53 (a) -- warra nt ed “ an up ward

de pa rtu re.” Had th e co ur t de cl ared th at it was im po si ng an up ward va ria nc e, in st ead
of an up ward de pa rtu re, th ere wou ld be no ba si s fo r a c l a i m of pl ai n erro r un de r § 4 A1.3 (a). See Uni te d S ta te s v . McKi nz ie
, 55 7 F .3d 93 1, 9 33 -3 4 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ).
Bec au se Meji a-Pe rez di d no t ti m el y rai se th e i s s u e , “ th e di st ric t co ur t ha d no
op po rtu ni ty to cl ari fy it s co m m en ts or to co rrec t an y po te nt ia l erro r in th e fir st in st an ce.” W al ki ng Eag le
, 55 3 F.3 d at 65 7 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. The re was no pl ai n

erro r. 2

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Eve n whe n th e Gui de li ne s were m an da to ry , in ap pl y in g § 4A1 .3(a ) we di d no t 2
req ui re “ a rit ua li st ic ex erci se in whi ch [th e se nt en ci ng co ur t] m ech an ic al ly di sc us se s each cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y it reject s en ro ut e to th e cat eg or y th at it s e le ct s.” U n i te d St at es v. Lev i, 22 9 F.3 d 67 7, 67 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ), qu ot in g Uni te d St a t e s v

. Day
, 99 8 F.2 d 62 2, 62 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ). “ The ab se nc e of an on -th e-re co rd

co m pa ris on [wit h of

fen de rs in hi g h e r cat eg or ie s] is no t fat al ; th e se nt en ce wil l be
up he ld if th e rev ie win g co ur t is sa ti sf ie d th at th e ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ces act ua ll y

ex is te d an d th at th e de pa rtu re was reas on ab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Left Han d Bu ll
, 47 7 F.3 d 5 18 , 52 1 (8 th Cir . 20 06 ), cert . den ie d, 5 51 U.S. 11 73 (20 07 ).

-5

-