T h e H o n o rab le Jo h n R . P ad o v a, S en ior D istri ct Ju d g e o f th e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt * fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 11- 2491

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J U A N M E N D E Z -R A M IR E Z , Appel l ant

O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 3- 10- cr - 0592- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on

__________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

on February7, 2012 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R a n d V A N A S K IE , C i r cui tJudges , a n d P A D O V A ,

Seni orD is tr i ct

Judge * ( Fi l ed: February14, 2012 )

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________ P A D O V A , Seni orD is tr i ct Judge .2

A ppel l antJu an M endez- R ami r ez c hal l enges bot h the pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of hi s 48- m ont h s ent ence aft erpl eadi ng gui l t yt o one countof r eentr yaft er d e p o r t a t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S . C. § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) & ( b ) ( 2 ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I . A s w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof thi s cas e, w e w i l l s et for t h onl y s el ectbackgr ound fac t s . M endez
- R ami r ez w as born i n G uat emal a i n 1959 and fi r s t came t o t he U ni t ed St at es i n 1989. M endez
- R ami r ez w as convi ct ed of dr i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed i n 1990 and w as t w i ce c onvi ct ed of tr ans por tor di s tr i b u ti n g n arc o ti cs i n 1991. H e w as depor t ed fort he fi r s tt i m e on O ct ober21, 1991. M endez
- R ami r ez r etur ned t o t he U ni t ed S t at es and w as convi ct ed of di s t r i but i on of nar cot i cs i n 1994. H e w as depor t ed fr om t he U ni t ed St at es on t hr ee a ddi t i onal occa s i ons aft erhi s 1994 convi ct i on: A pr i l 20, 1 9 9 5 , A p ri l 9, 1997 and J ul y24, 2008. H e i l l egal l yr eturned t o t he U ni t ed St at es agai n l at er in 2008. M endez
- R ami r ez w as hom el es s att i m es aft erhi s 2008
re tu rn to th e U n ited S tate s a n d f re q u e n tly s tayed a t th e N e w Je rse yR e sc u e M iss io n in T re n to n , N e w J e rs e y . M e n d e z -R a m ire z w a s a rre ste d th re e tim e s in T re n to n b e tw e e n F e b ru a ry2 8 a n d Ju ly 4, 2010. O n February28, 2010, he w as arr es t ed fordefi antt r es passi n g an d beggi ng or panhandl i ng ar ound t he Tre nt on T r ans i tC ent er. O n A pr i l 8, 2010, he w as arr es t ed for
r es i s t i ng arr es t , aggr avat ed as s aul t , unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a w eapon a nd as s aul ton pol i ce. O n J u l y 4 , 2 0 1 0 , h e w a s a r r e s t e d f o rr e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y, r e s i s t i n g a r r e s ta n d b u r g l a r y.D e f

e n se c o u n se l sp e c if

ica llyc h a llen g e d th e sp e c ial o f f e n se c h a ra c ter istic c o n tain e d in 1 U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) , w hi ch i ncr eas es a def endant ’ s bas e off

ens e l evel forr eentr yaft er depor t at i on by16 l evel s i f the def endantr eent er ed the U ni t ed St at es aft erhavi ng been convi ct ed of a drug t r aff i cki ng offe ns e forw hi ch he r ece i ved a s ent ence of m or e than 13 m o n ths o f im p ri so n m en t. U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1 . 2 (b)(1 )(A )(i ). 3 O n Ju l y 10 , 20 10 , w hil e M end ez-R am i rez w as being hel d at t he M ercer C ou nty Ja il i n T r ent on, N ew J er s eyfol l ow i ng hi s J ul y4 arr es t, I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement
a g e n ts d isc o v e re d th a t h e w a s in th e U n ited S tate s illeg a llya f ter h a v in g b e e n p re v io u sly depor t ed t o G uat emal a. O n Sept ember 9, 2010, M endez
- R ami r ez w as char ged i n a fe der al i ndi ctm entw i t h one countof ent er i ng t he U ni t ed St at es aft erhavi ng been r emoved
su b seq u en t t o the co m m issi o n o f an ag g rav ated fe lon y in violati o n o f 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 (a) & (b )( 2 ). H e p le d g u ilty to th a t c h a rg e o n F e b ru a ry 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 . T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d M endez
- R ami r ez on M ay24, 2011. P ri o r to t he sent encing, defe nse cou nsel sentt he D i stri ctC ou rta l eng th y se ntenci ng l et t er. D efen se couns el di d notcont es tt he Pr obat i on O ffi cer ’ s cal cul at i on of M endez
- R ami r ez’ s t ot al offe ns e l evel of 21, hi s cr i m i nal hi s t ory cat egory of II I , or t he advi s oryG ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange of 46- 57 m ont hs . D efe ns e couns el al s o di d notfi l e a mot i on fordepartur e fr om t hat
sen tenc ing ran g e. D ef

en se c o u n sel d id, ho w ev er, ask the D istri ct C o u rtto v aryd o w n w ard fro m the a d v isory G u idelines sen tenc ing ran g e on the g rou n d s tha t th e G u ideline f o r reen try a f ter d e p o rta tio n , U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 , is de v o id o f ra tio n a l, re liab le, e m p irica l, his to ric a l b a sis and, as a r es ul t , over s t at es t he s er i ous nes s of the off ens e and r es ul t s i n s ent enci ng r anges t hat
ar e di s pr opor t i onat e t o t he off ens e. D efe ns e couns el al s o ar gued that , s i nce M endez
1A di s tr i ct court l ocat ed i n a fas t - t r ack di s t r i ctm aydepartdow nw ar d fourl evel s fr om t he 2 G uidel i ne rang e for reentry aft er de po rt at i on i f t he defe nd ant ag rees t o p l ead g uil t yal m ost im m e d ia te ly af

te r h is o r h e r a rr e s t. See U . S. S. G . § 5K 3. 1. T he D i s t r i ct of N ew J er s eyi s not a f a s t- tr a c k d is tr ic t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez , 6 5 0 F . 3 d 9 5 2 , 9 5 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 1 ).

4 R a m ir e z w o u ld q u ali fyfo r fa st- tr ac k d ispo sit ion in a f ast-trac k d istri ct, the D istri ct C o u rt s houl d varydow nw ar d fr om t he ad v isory G ui del i nes r ange t o acc ountforthe s ent enci ng dis pa r i ty be t w e e n fa s t - t r a c k a nd no n- fa s t - t r a c k di s t r i c t s . D e fe ns e c ou ns e l r e pe a t e d t hese 2
ar gum ent s atl ength dur i ng t he s ent enci ng hear i ng and aske d t he D i s t r i ct C our t t o i m pos e a 24- m onth s ent ence . T he D i s t r i ct C our t r ej ect ed defens e counse l ’ s ar gum ent and found that M endez
- R ami r ez’ s G ui del i ne r ange w as fa ir , bas ed on how m anyt i m es he r eturned t o t he U n it ed S tat es af

ter b eing d ep o rt ed an d h is h ist o ry o f crim inal ac ti v ity . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt s ent ence d M endez
- R ami r ez t o 48 m ont hs of i m pr i s onm ent . T hi s s ent ence fel l att he l ow end
o f th e a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s s e n te n c in g ra n g e c a lc u la te d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt . M endez
- R ami r ez c ont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our t pr ocedur al l yerr ed ats ent enci ng by fai l i ng t o expl ai n i t s r ej ect i on of hi s ar gum entt hat t he G ui del i ne for r eentr yaft erdeport at i on i s fl aw ed. H e al s o cont ends t hathi s s ent ence i s s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3742( a) . W e appl yt he abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d t o both M endez
- R ami r ez’ s cl ai m of pr ocedur al err orand hi s chal l enge t o t he s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence . U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F .3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ).5 III . A . M endez
- R ami r ez a r gues t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our t pr ocedur al l y err ed by fai l i ng t o gi ve m eani ngful cons i der at i on t o al l as pect s of hi s ar gum entthatthe G ui del i ne forr eentr yaft er d e p o rt a tio n is f

la w e d . See R i ta v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 551 U . S. 338, 356- 57 ( 2007) ( not i ng t hat “w hen a j udge deci des s i m pl y t o appl yt he G ui del i nes t o a part i cul arcas e, doi ng s o w i l l not nece s s ar i l yr equi r e l engthy expl anat i on, ” how ever , w hen a de fenda nt“pr es ent s nonfr i vol ous re a so n s f o r im p o sin g a d if

f e re n t s e n ten c e . . . the ju d g e w ill n o rm a llyg o f u rth e r a n d e x p lain
w h yh e h as re

jected tho se a rgu m en ts”). W e ha v e pre v iou sly m ad e itclea r th at a d istri ct co u rt i s notr equi r ed “t o r ej ecta part i cul ar G ui del i nes r ange w her e t hat cour tdoes not , i n fac t , have di s agr eementw i t h t he G ui del i ne ati s s ue. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez
- R eye s , 589 F. 3d 667, 671 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v . A rr e lu c e a -Za m u d io , 5 8 1 F . 3 d 1 4 2 , 1 4 8 -49 (3d C ir . 2009) , and U

ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F . 3d 237, 249 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ) . M or eover , t he D i s tr i ctC o u rti s not“r equi r ed t o engage i n ‘ i ndepende ntanal y s i s ’ of the empi r i cal justi fi cat i ons and del i ber at i ve undert aki ngs thatl ed t o a part i cul arG ui del i ne. ” I d. ( c i t i ng U n itedS ta tes v . A g u ila r-Hu e rta , 576 F.3d 365, 368 ( 7th C i r . 2009) , and U ni t ed Stat es v. D u a rte , 5 6 9 F .3 d 5 2 8 , 5 3 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 )) . S e e a lso A g u ila r-Hu e rta , 576 F. 3d at367- 68 (“[W ]e do no tt hink a j ud ge is r equi r ed to c o n si d e r . . . an a rg u m e n t th a t a g u id e lin e is
unw or thyof appl i cat i on i n any c a se b e c a u se it w a s p ro m u lg a ted w it h o u t ad e q u a te del i ber at i on. H e s houl d nothave t o del ve i nt o t he hi s t oryof a gui del i ne s o t hathe ca n s at i s fy6

h im se lf th a t th e p ro c e ss th a t p ro d u c e d it w a s a d e q u a te to p ro d u c e a g o o d g u id e lin e . F o r if h e is re q u ire d to d o th a t, se n ten c in g h e a rin g s w ill b e c o m e u n m a n a g e a b le, a s th e f o c u s s h if ts fr om the def

endant ’ s conductt o t he ‘ l egi s l at i ve’ hi s t oryof the gui del i nes . ” ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. H

uf f s tat l er , N o . 0 8 -2 6 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 W L 1 8 5 5 1 6 1 , at * 3 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. O ’ C onnor , 567 F. 3d 395, 398 ( 8t h C i r . 2009) ; and U ni t ed St at es v. Mondr agon- Sant i ago , 5 6 4 F .3 d 3 5 7 , 3 6 6 -6 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 )) ). I n thi s cas e, w hi l e t he D i s t r i ct C our t di d not engage i n an on- t he- r ecor d anal y s i s of the hi s t oryof t he G ui del i ne, i t di d expl ai n w hyt he G ui del i ne w as appr opr i at e i n thi s cas e. T he D istric t C o u rt e v a lu a ted th e n a tu re a n d c irc u m sta n c e s o f M e n d e z -R a m ire z ’s o f

f e n se a s w e ll
as hi s h i s t o r ya n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n r e a c h i n g t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a ta s e n t e n c e wi t h i n t he Gu i d e l i n e r a n g e wo u l d b e a p p r o p r i a t e f o rh i m: I have r evi ew ed the pr es ent ence r epor tverycar ef ul l y . T he gui del i ne r ange f

ort hi s defe ndant , bas ed on th e ca l cul at i on w h ic h P ro b a tio n e n g a g e d in , is 4 6 to 5 7 m o n th s in c u s to d y . I think t hat that c a lcu lation i s fai r. I appreci at e [t hat defense couns el ] di s agr ees , and thinks thatt he enha ncementi s gr eat er t han nec es s ary . B utw hen y ou cons i derhow oft en M r . R ami r ez c a m e b a c k a f

ter b e in g d e p o rte d , w h e n y o u c o n sid e r h is in a b ili ty to liv e a life f

re e o f c rim e , an o rg a n ize d life . N o w , I ap p re c iate t hathi s l anguage s ki l l i s l i m i t ed, he does n’ t sp ea k the ki nd of E ngl i s h t hatw oul d m ake i teas yfor hi m t o get a j ob, he w entas faras s econd gr ade, he’ s fr om G uat emal a, he’ s nothad a st eady m ar i t al orfami l yl i fe, he’ s gotchi l dr en, buti n di ffe r ent hous ehol ds . I t ’ s j u st unfor tunat e. H e w as s hot , s uffe r ed fr om a s er i ous j aw i nj ur y . I n m anyw ay s , M r . R ami r ez i s a per s on one w o u ld f ee l sorryfo r. B uthe has not t aken the oppor tuni t i es t o s epar at e hi m s el f fr om7 a l i fe of cr im e, and I can’ tgi ve hi m the ki nd of s ent ence that [def ens e couns el ] ask s fo r bec aus e he di d notcompl yw i t h t he d e p o r t a t i o n s t ha t t o o k p l a c e . He wa s n o ts u p p o s e d t o c o me back; he di d, m or e than once . So, I t hi nk t he gui del i ne s ent ence i s appr opr i at e. (A p p . at 18 . ) S ince the D istri ct C o u rtco n clud ed , af ter co n side ri n g M en d e z -R a m ir ez ’s
a rg u m e n t, th a t th e s e n te n c in g ra n g e th a t r e s u lte d f ro m th e a p p lic a tio n o f

U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2
w as appr opr i at e t o M endez
- R ami r ez’ s s peci fi c ci r cumst ance s , i t w as notr equi r ed t o anal y ze the “e m pi r i cal j us t i fi cat i ons an d del i ber at i ve undert aki ngs ” under gi r di ng thatG ui del i ne. Lopez
- R eye s , 5 8 9 F .3 d a t 6 7 1 . W e c o n c lu d e , ac c o rd in g ly , tha t th e D istric t C o u rt’s f a ilu re to expl ai n w hyi tr ej ect ed M endez
- R ami r ez’ s ar gum entr egar di ng the s uppos ed fl aw s i n the G u id e lin e f

o r r e e n tr ya f

te r d e p o rt a tio n d o e s n o t c o n s titu te p ro c e d u ra l e rr o r.

B . M end ez-R am i rez al so argues t hat his sent ence i s sub st anti velyun reas on able because i tw as i nfec t ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pr ocedur al err or s . W e “‘ rev iew t he s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence under an abuse
- of- di s cr et i on s t andar d, r egar dl es s of w hether it fa ll s w i thi n t he G ui del i nes r ange. ’ ” U n itedS ta tes v . Se v illa , 541 F. 3d 226, 230 (3d C ir . 2008) ( quot i ng U

nited S tates v. W

ise , 515 F. 3d 207, 2 1 8 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , and ci t i ng G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 (2 0 0 7 ) ) . U lti m a tely , “[ t]o d e ter m in e w h e th e r a se n ten c e is
r eas onabl e, t he courtm us texami ne ‘ w heth er t he r ecor d as a w hol e r efl ect s r at i onal and
m eani ngful cons i der at i on of the fa ct or s enumer at ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v . G o ff , 501 F. 3d 250, 254 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556, 5718

( 3d C i r . 2007) ( en banc ) ) ( addi t i onal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . Fur t herm or e, “abs entanys i gni fi cant pr ocedur al err or , w e must‘ gi ve due defe r ence t o t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatt he § 3553( a) fac t or s , on a w hol e, ’ j us t i fythe s ent ence . ” Tom ko , 5 6 2 F .3 d a t 5 6 8 (q u o tin g G a ll, 552 U . S. at 51, and ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. B ungar , 4 7 8 F . 3 d 5 4 0 , 5 4 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 )). “In otherw or ds , i f t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s s ent ence i s pr ocedur al l ys ound, w e w i l l aff i r m i tunl es s no r eas onabl e s ent enci ng cour tw oul d have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence on t hatpart i cul ar defe ndantfort he r eas ons t he di s t r i ctcour tpr ovi ded. ” Id . W e h a v e d e ter m in e d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t m a k e a n yp ro c e d u ra l er ro r in deci di ng thatt he G ui del i ne forr eentr yaft erdepor t at i on w as appr opr i at e i n thi s cas e. T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d M endez
- R ami r ez ne ar the bot t om of the advi s oryG ui del i ne s e n te n c in g ra n g e c a lc u la te d b a s e d o n t h a t G u id e lin e . See G a ll , 552 U . S. at51 ( “I f the
se n ten c e is w ith in th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e , th e a p p e llate c o u rt m a y , b u t is n o t re q u ire d to , ap p ly a pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . ” ( ci t i ng R ita , 5 5 1 U .S . a t 3 4 7 )). T h e re c o rd f u rth e r re f

lec ts that the D istri ct C o u rtco n side red the § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors in d eterm ining M en d ez -R am ir ez ’s
s ent ence and spec i fi cal l yaddr es s ed on the r ecor d the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of M endez
R am ir ez ’s of

fe n se, his h ist o ryan d ch ara cterist ics, an d the n ee d fo r spe cific d eter re n ce . In
a d d iti o n , the re c o rd d e m o n stra tes th a t th e D istric t C o u rt w a s a w a r e th a t, a t th e tim e o f h is
s ent enci ng, M endez
- R ami r ez f ace d s t at e cha r ges fors er i ous cr i m es , i ncl udi ng aggr avat ed
a s s a u lt, u n la w f

u l p o s s e s s io n o f

a w e a p o n , a s s a u lt o n a p o lic e o f f ic e r, a n d b u rg la ry. W e concl ude thatt he “r ecor d as a w hol e r efl ect s rati o n al a n d m eani ngful cons i der at i on of the9

fac t or s enumer at ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . ” Tom ko , 562 F. 3d at 568 ( i nt ernal quot at i on and
c itatio n s o m itt e d ). M o re o v e r, b a se d u p o n th is re c o rd , w e c a n n o t s a yth a t “n o re a so n a b le
s ent enci ng courtw oul d have i m posed the s ame se nt ence on [M endez
- R ami r ez] fort he
r eas ons t he di s t r i ctcourtpr ovi ded. ” Id
. I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.