09-1881 -cr

Unit e d S tate s v . C ar

r anz a- S al ce do UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P RE CE DE NT I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R FI L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D E R IN A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S E RVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A t a s tate d ter m o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y or k, on t he 10 dayof M ay , tw o thous and t en. th P RE S E NT : J ON O. NE WM AN,

R E E N A R A G G I, PETE R W
. HA LL,

C i r cui tJudges
.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel l ee , v. N o. 09- 1881- cr J U L I O C A R R A N Z A
- SA L C E D O , al s o know n as C ar l os A rr eaga , al s o know n as J os e Sant os H ernandez
- M unoz, al s o know n as N el s on O r t i z, D ef endant

-Appel lant .

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- FO R A PPE L L A N T : L aur i e S. H er s hey , M anhas s et , N ew Y or k. FOR APPELLEE : H ar r i s M i chae l Fi sch m an, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney( K ather i ne Pol k Fai l l a, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A tto rn e y , on the br i ef

), f orPr eetB har ar a, U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyforthe Southern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k.2

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (L e w is A . K a p la n , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND DE CR E E D th a tth e j u d g me n te n t e r e d o n Ap r i l 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 , i s AF F I RMED
. D ef en d an t Juli o C arran za -S alce d o , w h o p lead ed g u il tyto o n e c o u n t of il lega l r ee n try
a f ter d e p o rta tio n , se e 8 U .S .C
. § 1 3 2 6 (a ), (b )(2 ), ap p e a ls f ro m a ju d g m e n t se n ten c in g h im pr i nci pal l yt o 57 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . W e r evi ew a s ent ence forrea so n abl enes s , s ee U nit ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U
. S
. 22 0, 26 1-62 (20 05 ), a st and ard aki n to r eview for abu se
o f d iscreti o n , see U n it ed S tat es v . C av era , 5 5 0 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 7 -8 8 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ) (en b an c). “R eas onabl enes s r evi ew i nvol ves cons i der at i on o f b oth the l ength of the s ent ence ( s ubs t ant i ve r eas onablen ess) and t he pr ocedur es us ed t o arr i ve atthe s ent ence ( pr ocedur al
rea so n ab lene ss). ” U n it ed S ta te s v . C an o v a, 48 5 F
. 3 d 6 7 4 , 6 7 9 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). In under t aki ng thi s r evi ew , w e as s um e the part i es ’ fami l i ar i tyw i th the fa ct s and r ecor d of pr i or p r o c e e d i n g s , wh i c h we r e f e r e n c e o n l ya s n e c e s s a ryt o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m. 1. P rocedu ral R easona bleness C arr anza - Sal cedo s ubm i t s thathi s s ent ence i s pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e bec aus e, at the s ent enci ng hear i ng, the di s tr i ctcourtdi d not( a) r eci t e eit h er t hatthe Sent enci ng G uidel i nes are advis oryor that i thad con si dered the 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 35 53 (a) fact ors, (b) add res s defe ns e couns el ’ s ar gum ent r egar di ng fas t - tr ack di s tr i ct s , or( c) expl ai n i t s s ent ence i n open
cou rt . W e i den t i fyno m eri ti n these ar gu m ents .T h e U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne y s in se v era l distri cts “w h ere the n u m b er o f il lega l r e-e n try 1 c a s e s was o v e r whe l mi n g th e c a p a c i tyt o p r o s e c u t e v i o l a t o r s ” h a v e i n s t i tu t e d f a s t - tr ack p rog ram s, w h ere b ythe U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne y rec o m m en d s a 24 -m o n th sen tenc e i n return f o r th e d e f

e n d a n t’s w a iv e r o f

v a rio u s rig h ts, in c lu d in g in d ic tm e n t b yg ra n d ju ry , jur ytrial, pr es ent at i on of a pr e- s ent ence r eport , and appe l l at e r evi ew . U ni t ed St at es v. M ej i a, 461 F. 3d 1 5 8 , 1 6 0 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). 3 I n the abs ence of r ecor d evi dence s ugges t i ng otherw i s e, w e pr es um e thata s ent enci ng ju d g e u n d e rsto o d h is s e n ten c in g d isc re tio n u n d e r B o o k e r a n d f a ith f u llyd isc h a rg e d h is d u ty to co n side r th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors. S ee U n it ed S tat es v. L eg ros, 52 9 F
. 3 d 4 7 0 , 4 7 8 (2d C ir
. 2008); see also U ni t ed St at es v. K el l er , 539 F. 3d 97, 101 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( di s avow i ng “form ul ai c r equi r ement s ” or“r obot i c i ncant at i ons ” t o di s char ge § 3553( a) duty ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Fl emi ng, 397 F. 3d 95, 100 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( s ame)
. T he re cor d i n thi s cas e pr ovi des
no r eas on t o ques t i on thi s pr es um pt i on. N ordi d the di s tr i ctcourterrbynots peci fi cal l yr es pondi ng t o coun sel ’ s fas t - tr ack
ar gum ent . I n U ni t ed St at es v . M eji a, 461 F
. 3d 158, 164 ( 2d C i r . 2006) , w e r ej ect ed a

1
r eas onabl enes s chal l enge t o a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r efus al t o m i t i gat e a s ent ence t o compensa t e for the abs ence of a f

as t - tr ack pr ogr am. L i ke M ej i a, C arr anza - Sal cedo s oughtthe bene fi tof a
r educe d s ent ence w i thouts uffe r i ng the detr i m ent s as s oci at ed w i th fas t - tr ack tr eatm ent . See i d. at 1 6 2 -63
. I n l i ghtof thi s pr ece dent , C arr anza - Sal cedo c annotdemonstr at e thatt he
s um m aryr ej ect i on of hi s fas t - tr ack a r gum entw as unr eas onabl e. C arr anza - Sal cedo ur ges us t o r e v i s i tth e f

a s t - tr a c k i s s u e i n l i g h t o f K i m b r o u g h v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 5 5 2 U
. S
. 8 5 ( 2 0 0 7 )
. We4

decl i ne t o do s o beca us e w e have al r eadyr eaf fi r m ed ourM ej i a dec i s i on aft erK i m br ough. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . H en d ry , 5 2 2 F
. 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 1 -42 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). Fi nal l y , by expl i ci t l y adopt i ng the pr e- s ent ence r eport ( “PSR ”) at the se nt enci ng h e a rin g , the d istric t co u rt sa tisf ied its o b lig a tio n to “ sta te in o p e n c o u rt th e r e a s o n s f o r its i m pos i t i on of the part i cul ars ent ence . ” 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( c) ; s ee U ni t ed S t at es v. M ol i na, 356 F. 3d 269, 277 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( “[T] he ‘ open court ’ r equi r ementm aybe s at i s fi ed bythe di s tr i ct
courtadopt i ng the P SR i n open cour t . ”) ; cf. U ni t ed S t at es v. E s pi noza, 514 F. 3d 209, 212 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( not i ng thatdi s tr i ctcourtdi d nots at i s fy“open c our t ” r equi r ementw hen i t“fa i l ed t o s t at e i t s fi ndi ngs or expl i ci t l y adopt the PSR i n open court ”)
. C arr anza - Sal cedo a r gues t hat adopt i on of t he P SR w as i ns uffi ci entt o expl ai n hi s s ent ence beca us e the di s tr i ctcourtdi d not
s peci fi cal l yaddr es s ea ch o f h is a r gum ent s . O urpr ece denti s t o the contr ary . See U ni t ed St at es v. V i l l afue r t e, 502 F. 3d 204, 210 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( “[W ] e do noti ns i s tthatthe di s tr i ct
cou rtadd res s everyargum ent the defen dan t has m ade .
. . . ”); see al so R i t a v. U nit ed S t at es, 5 5 1 U .S . 3 3 8 , 3 5 6 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ S o m e tim e s a ju d icia l o p in io n re sp o n d s to e v e rya rg u m e n t;
s o me t i me s i td o e s n o t . . . . T h e l a w l e a v e s mu c h , i n th i s r e s p e c t , t o th e j u d g e ’ s o wn p rof essio n al j u d g m en t. ”). A ccor di ngl y , w e i dent i fyno pr ocedur al unr eas onabl enes s i n the chal l enged s ent ence . 2. S ub st anti ve R easona bleness C arr anza - Sal cedo a s s ert s that hi s s ent ence i s s ubs t ant i vel y unr eas onabl e bec aus e ( a) tw o of hi s fourpr i orcr i m i nal convi ct i ons occurr ed w hen he w as 20 y ea r s ol d; ( b) he5

exper i ence d “tr agi c ci r cumst ance s , ” i ncl u d i n g c h i l d h o o dp o v e rty ; ( c) hi s m otherand chi l dr en
n ee d h is assist an ce ; and (d) let ters su b m itted to the d istri ct c o u rt att est t o h is go o d ch ara cter. A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at14. “A s ent enci ng j udge has veryw i de l at i tude t o deci de the pr operdegr ee of puni s hm ent for an i ndi vi dual offe nderand a pa r t i cul arcr i m e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 5 5 0 F .3 d a t 1 8 8
. “ [ I]n th e o v e rw h e lm in g m a jo rity o f c a se s, a G u id e lin e s se n ten c e w ill f a ll comfort abl yw i thi n t he br oad r ange of s ent ence s thatw oul d be r eas onabl e i n the part i cul ar
c irc u m sta n c e s.” U n ited S tate s v . F e rn a n d e z , 4 4 3 F .3 d 1 9 , 2 7 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); se e a lso R ita
v. U ni t ed St at es , 551 U
. S. at 347 ( not i ng thatG ui del i nes s ent ence “s i gni fi cant l yi ncr eas es the l i kel i hood thatthe sent ence i s a re as onabl e one”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d at 1 8 9 (h o ld in g th a t th is c o u rt w ill “ se t a sid e a d istric t co u rt’s s u b sta n tiv e d e ter m in a tio n o n ly i n exce pt i onal cas es ” ( em p h asis i n or i gi nal ) )
. H er e, the di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d C arr anza Sal cedo t o 57 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , the bott om of the appr opr i at e G ui del i nes r ange. G i ven C arr anza - Sal cedo’ s pas tconvi ct i ons and hi s t oryof r eci di vi s m , i ncl udi ng tw o deport at i ons fol l ow ed byi l l egal r eentr y , w e concl ude that the di s tr i ctcourtact ed w el l w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on i n i m pos i ng thi s s ent ence . See U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d at189. W e have cons i der ed C arr anza - Sal cedo’ s other ar gum ent s on appea l and conc l ude that th e ya re w ith o u t m e rit. A c c o rd in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt