The Clerk of the Court is instructed to a mend the official c aption in this case to conf orm * to the listi ngof the pa

rties above

. 08-5292 -cr U S A v . A ria s - Madrid 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 R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . CI T AT 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 R U LE O F A PPELLA TE PR O C EDU R E 32 . 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T , A P A R T Y M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E RAL 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 A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S E RVE A COPY O F I T O N ANY P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s for the Second C i r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed S t at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y or k, on the 14 dayof M ay , tw o thous and t en. th P RE S E NT : J ON O. NE WM AN,

J O H N M . W A L K E R , J R ., GE RA RD E

. L YNC H,

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. 08- 5292- cr RA M ON AR I AS

- M ADR I D, a l s o k n o wn a s OS CA R M AR RA , a l s o k n o wn a s RA M ON ANT ONI O M A D RI D , a l s o k no w n a s O RL A N D O FLO RE S, a l s o k n o wn a s J OS E F RA NC I S CO M OR AZ ON, D e fen da n t-Ap

p e lla n t. *

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- FO R A PPE L L A N T : J A M E S M

. B R A N D E N , N ew Y or k, N Y , on s ubm i s s i on FO R A PPE L L E E : J A C Q U E L I N E L

. SPR A T T and E M I L Y B E R G E R , for B ENTO N J

. CA M PBELL, U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyfort he E as t ern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k, B r ookl y n , N Y , on s ubm i s s i on. 1 A p p ea l from the U n ite d S ta tes D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk 2 (E ri c N . V ita lia n o , Judge ).2 1 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 2 DE CR E E D th a tth e j u d g me n to f c o n v i c t i o n , e n t e r e d o n Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 , i s AF F I RMED

. 3 R amon A r i as - M adr i d appea l s fr om a s ent ence of 84 m onths i m pr i s onm enti m pos ed 4 fora convi ct i on, fol l ow i ng a gui l typl ea, of i l l egal r eentryi nt o the U ni t ed St at es aft er 5 d e p o r t a t i o n s u b s e q u e n tt o c on v i c t i o n f o ra n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n yi n v i o l a t i o n o f

8 U. S

. C. 6 § 1 3 2 6 (a ) & (b) (2)

. A ri as- M adri d chal l eng es on l y the subst anti ve r easona bleness of h is 7 s ent ence , cont endi ng thati ti s “gr eat er than neces s ary t o m eet the s ent enci ng obj ect i ves s et 8 for th i n 18 U

. S. C

. § 3553( a) ( 2)

. ” 9 W e r evi ew the r eas onabl enes s of a s ent ence underan abus e- of- di s cr et i on s t andar d, 1 0 and w i l l “s etas i de a di s tr i ctcourt ’s s u b stan t i ve det erm i nat i on onl yi n exce pt i onal cas es 1 1 w h e re th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n c a n n o t b e lo c a te d w ith in th e ra n g e o f p e rm is s ib le d e c is io n s .” 12 U

ni t ed Stat es v. R igas , 5 8 3 F

. 3 d 1 0 8 , 1 2 1 -22 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ) (em p h asi s o m itte d ). In 1 3 e x a m in in g th e su b sta n tiv e re a so n a b len e ss o f a se n ten c e , “w e tak e in to a c c o u n t th e to tality 1 4 o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , g iv in g d u e d e f e re n c e to th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e ’s e x e rc is e o f d is c re tio n .” 15 U

nited S tates v. C avera , 550 F. 3d 180, 1 9 0 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( en banc ) ( i nt ernal quot at i on 1 6 m a rk s o m itte d ). 1 7 A r i as - M adr i d cont ends that the di s tr i ctcourterr ed byfai l i ng t o gi ve ade quat e w ei ght 1 8 t o hi s part i cul ar “hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs ” under§ 3553( a) ( 1) , s peci fi cal l yhi s depr i ved 1 9 chi l dhood, hi s addi ct i on t o var i ous drugs , hi s daught er ’ s need f ori nt er act i on w i th herfather 2 0 and the i l l nes s of hi s m other

. A r i as - M adr i d ar gues addi t i onal l y thatthe unr eas onabl enes s of 2 1 hi s s ent ence i s demonstr at ed by the fac tthathe r ece i ved a s i gni fi cant l yl ongers ent ence for 2 2 th is c ri m e th a n w h e n c o n v ic te d f o r h is p re v io u s , a rg u a b ly m o re s e ri o u s , c ri m e s .3 1 H er e, the di s tr i ct court expl i ci t l y s t at ed t hat i t had cons i der ed the G ui del i nes and the 2 fac t or s under§ 3553( a) i n det erm i ni ng the sen tenc e. T he di s tr i ctcourts peci fi cal l ym ade 3 cl ear that i t t ook acc ount of the di ffi cul t ci r cumst ance s of A r i as - M adr i d’ s upbr i ngi ng and of 4 the il l ness of h i s m otheras m i t i gati ng ci rcum st ances. H o w ever, i tdeterm i ned that these 5 m i t i gat i ng fac t or s w er e more th an count erbal ance d byA r i as - M adr i d’ s ext ens i ve cr i m i nal 6 h i s t o rya n d th e n e e d f o r g e n e r a l d e t e rr e n c e . As a g e n e r a l ru l e , we d o n o ts u b s t i tu t e o u ro wn 7 c o n s id e ra tio n o f

th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) se n te n c in g f a c to rs f o r th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s

. See U ni t ed Stat es 8 v. Fernandez , 443 F. 3d 19, 34 ( 2d C i r . 2006) (“[ W ]e w i l l nots econd gue s s the w ei ght( or 9 l ack ther eof) thatthe jud g e ac co rde d t o a gi ven fa ct orort o a s peci fi c ar gum entm ade 1 0 pur s uantt o thatfact o r . ”) O n the bas i s of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s eval uat i on of the fa ct s and 1 1 ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e, w e ca nnots aythatthe s ent ence of 84 m onths i m pr i s onm entw as 1 2 not“w i thi n the r ange of perm i s s i bl e dec i s i ons . ” O urconc lusion is notunderm i ned byt he 1 3 f a c t th a t A ri a s -M a d ri d re c e iv e d le s s e r s e n te n c e s in th e p a s t f o r h is p re v io u s c ri m e s . 1 4 Fur thers uppor t i ng ourconcl us i on thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ent ence i s r eas onabl e i s t he 1 5 fac tthati ti s w i thi n t he G ui del i nes r ange for hi s cr i m e. A l though thi s C i r cui thas notadopt ed 1 6 a pr es um pt i on that a w i thi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence i s r eas onabl e, “i n the overw hel m i ng 1 7 m aj or i tyof ca s es , a G ui del i nes s ent ence w i l l fal l comfort abl yw i thi n the br oad r ange of 1 8 s ent ence s that w oul d be re as onabl e i n the part i cul arci r cumst ance s . ” Fer nandez , 443 F. 3d 1 9 a t 2 7

. 2 0 F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e j u d g me n to f c o n v i c t i o n i s AF F I RMED

. 2 1 FOR TH E CO UR T: 2 2 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 23 24