## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2427 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J OSE G UADA LUPE P ER EZ -M OLI NA, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 09-40092-001

—Jo e Bil ly Mc Dad e, Judge .
A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 9, 2010

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 3, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, T INDER, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judge. J o se Gua dal upe Pe r ez - M o l i na ple d gui l ty to unlawful e ntryi nto the Unite d Sta tes f ollow i ng r em ova l, s ee 8 U. S
. C. § § 13 26 ( a) a nd (b) ( 1) , a nd w as sente nced to 34 m onths i n pri son, m or e than twice as l o n ga s th e h i g h e n d o fth e a p p l i c ab l e s e n te nc i ng g ui del i ne r an g e. On appe alPe r ez - M o l i na a r g ue s th atthe cour t did not adequatel y j usti fy i m posi ng a sen tence abov e the guid eli ne range. W e affirm
. Th e d istri ct cou rt2 N o. 10

- 2427 acte d w el l withi n i ts d isc reti on byi m posi ng a hi gher sen ten ce to d eter th e d efend an t from con tinu ed re e nt ry and cri m i nal act i vi ty i n the U ni ted S tat es. Pe r ez - M o l i na ha s a hi st o r y o funl awful l y e nt er i ngthe Un i t e d S t a t e s a n d c o mmi t t i n g c r i me s wh i l e h e r e. He was fi r st r emov ed to M ex i co i n 20 04 afte r being co nvic te d in A riz on a c ou rt s t w i c e f o r as sa u ltin g h is gir lfrie n d an d on c e fo r th eft . W ith ina w ee k of t h at rem ov al, bo r derpa tr o l a g en ts a r r es te d hi m f o r i l l eg ale nt r y a nd he was re m ove d a s ec ond ti m e. Tw o days l ate r he was aga i n ar re ste d in A riz ona. In J une 200 8 he w as re m ove d a thi rd ti m e. In October2009 I l l i noi s p ol i ce arr est ed Per ezM olina f o r b urglary. H e w as con victed i n sta te cou rt ofburg l ar y. This tim e ar ound, Pere z- M ol i na was al so charg ed w i th an d pled guilty to th e federa l crim e of un law ful reent ry aft er an ea rlie r r em ov al follo w in g c on vic tio n for a felo ny . The g o ve r nm en t r ec o m m en ded a 16

- m o nth se ntence , the hi gh end ofthe appli cabl e guidel i ne r ange. At the fi r sts en te nc i nghe ar ing, the c o ur t st at ed i ts i nte nt i o n t o s en te nc e Pe r ez - M o l i na t o 3 6 m o nths , e xpr es sing concern that Pere z- M ol in a w oul d be l i kel y t o re - enter th e U nited States an d com m it furth er crim es. T h e c o u rt adde d, “ Ido n’ t th i nka s en te nc e o f1 0 to 1 6 m o nths [ the c al cul ate d range ] wh ere he has a l re ady se rv ed al m o sthal f oftha t wi l l a cc o m pl i sha ny th i ng . ” Ci ting U. S
. S
. G. § 4 A1. 3, the g ui del i ne s’ p oli cys ta te m en t r egardi ngupwar d de par tu r es f o r c r i m i na l hi st o r y, the cour t e xplain ed thatan above

- ra nge s entence was needed to deter Pere z- M ol i na f ro m continuing to en terN o. 10

- 2427 3 the Unite d Sta tes i l l ega l l y an d fr om co m m i tting further cr i m es he r e. Pe r ez - M o l i na ’ s co uns elo bj ec te d that he had no not i ce o f t he co urt’ s intent to sente nce ab ove th e ra n ge . Th e c ou rtag re ed to c o n t i n u e t h e h ea rin g u n til th e fol low ing w eek to give the d efense a furt he r op p o rtu ni tyt o a ddr es s th e i ss ue . ( Bec au se the s en ten ci ng gu idelines are no longe r m an d atory, the d ist r ict cou rt w as not re quir ed to gr ant the c on tinuance, se e Ir izar ry v . U ni t e d Sta tes , 5 53 U. S
. 7 08 , 7 15

- 16 ( 20 08 ) , b utthe c o nti nuance w as a r eas onable and f ai r- m i nd ed re sponse to th e o bj ec tio n .) A t the se cond hear i ng, the cour t r educed the pla nned sente nce t o 34 m onths and rea ffi rm ed that a s entence gr ea te r th an 16 m on th s w as n ee d ed to “e n c ou ra ge h im to l i ve a l a w- ab i d i n gl i fe a n d n o tg e ta r r e s t e d o rb r o u g ht to the a tte nti on o fthe pol i ce . ” The cour t m ade cl earthat th e sen ten ce w as “n ot a crim inal history d ep artu re” (a t e r m de fe ns e c o un s e l h a d u s e d) , b uts i mpl y a se ntence abov e the gui del i nes r ange base d on the cour t’ s a uthor i ty un d er 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553(a). On app ealPerez -M ol i na ar gues that the di str i ct co ur t ab us ed i ts di sc r et i o n b y no t ade qua te l y j us ti fy i ng i ts abov e- gu idel i ne se ntence. W hen se ntenci ng ab ove an appli cabl e guidel i ne r ange , a d i str i ct c ourtm ust “c o ns i derthe e xt en t o fthe de vi at i o n a nd e ns ur e th atthe j us ti fi ca ti o n i s su ffi ci en tly c o m pel l i ngt o s uppo r t th e degre e o fvar i ance. ” G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 552 U.S
. 38 , 50 (20 07 ); U nited Sta tes v. M iller, 60 1 F
. 3d 734, 739 ( 7th C ir. 2 010). Pe rez-M olina argue s tha t the district cou rt’s j usti fi cati ons f orhi s s entence c annot be di stingui shed4 N o. 10

- 2427 f r o m tho se we dee m ed i ns uffi ci en t i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. C a stro-Ju a rez , 4 25 F
. 3d 43 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) , a l so i nv o l ving a defendant convi cted of unlawfulentr y a fterr em ova l f o l l o wi nga f el o ny c o nv i ct i o n. In C a stro-Ju a rez , the dist ri ct c ou rt fa il ed to singl e o ut any f acto r i n 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) that w ar ra nted an ab ove - gui del i ne se nt en c e otherthan con cern s abou t crim inal history en com p assed by i ts referen ce t o § 4 A1. 3, whi chdi d no t j us tify s en te nc i ngthe defe nd ant t o m or e than t w ice t he hi gh end ofthe gui del i ne r ange. 425 F. 3d at 436- 37. A lthou g h di st r i ctc o ur ts may appl y the de par tu re gui del i nes b y way o fa n alo gy i n anal yzing the § 3553 ( a) f acto rs , theyar e no t bo und bythe gu id eli nes. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 612 F.3d 88 9, 89 6 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ). In C a stro-Ju a rez , we l oo ked to § 4A 1. 3 a t the par ties’ urg i ng, but w e em phasi zed that U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 543 U
. S. 220 ( 2005 ) , re quir ed the cour t to base i ts sente n c e on an anal ysi s o fthe § 3 55 3(a ) f acto rs . 42 5 F
. 3d at 436. J ust as s en te nc i ngj ud ges m ayi m po se b el o w-gui del i ne s en tence s when they re gar d the guidel i ne r ange as too se ve re, se e G all , 55 2 U.S
. at56; Ki m b r ough v. U ni t e d S t a tes , 55 2 U. S
. 8 5, 1 11 ( 20 07 ) , j udg es may se nt en ce above the gui del i nes i f t h ey consi der the r ange too l eni ent. S ee U nited Sta tes v. M cIn tyre, 531 F. 3d 481, 484 ( 7th Cir . 200 8) (aff i r m in g a b ov e-g u id elin e s en te n c e); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Kin g, 5 06 F
. 3d 53 2, 5 36

- 37( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( co nc l udi ng challeng e t o abov e- gui del i ne se ntence w oul d be fri volou s); U nited St at e s v. Sp ano , 47 6 F
. 3d 476, 48 0- 81 ( 7th Cir
. 20 07) ( affi rm i ng ab ove - gui del i ne se ntence)
. M or eove r, unl i ke C a stro-Ju a rez , the dist ri ct courther e r el i ed on m or e than cri m i nal hi sto ry to j usti fy i ts ab ov e-N o. 10

- 2427 5 g ui del i ne s en te nc e. Be side s no tingPe r ez - M o l i na ’ s ex t e n s i v e h i s t o r y o fi l l e g a l e n t r y a n d c r i me , th e c o u r tc o mm ented upon hi s per s o nal char acte ri sti cs, se e § 3 553( a) ( 1)

— in c lu d in g h is s ea r c h f or a b et te r life, h is f am i l y’ s r esi ding i n the U ni ted S tat es, and hi s abil i ty to ear n m oney i n the U ni ted S tat es

— and the parti cul arneed to deterhi m fro m furtherr eentr y, see § 35 53( a) ( 2) ( B), since th er e was “ no th i ngf o r hi m i n Mexi co . ” By co ns i der i ng th e o th erc i r cumst an ce s dr awi ngPe r ez- M ol i na t o the U ni ted S tat es, al ong w i th the need t o de te r h i m fro m re en tr y an d c rim e, th e d ist ric t cou rt h er e a d e q u at ely j usti fi ed i ts abov e- gui del i ne se ntence. A FFI RMED .

12- 3- 10