T he H o no rable John C o rbett O ’ M eara, U ni t ed Stat es D i st ri ct Jud ge f o r t he E ast ern D i st ri ct of M i chi gan, * si t t i ng by desi gnat i o n.

NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0444n.06 F iled: Jun e 25, 2007 No. 06-3540 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. RI CA RD O R OD RI QU EZ -G OM EZ , Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE NORT HERN DI STRIC T OF OHI O

Before: BATCHELDER and MARTIN, Cir cuit Judges, and O’MEARA, D istrictJudge * JOHN CORBET T O’ ME AR A, District Judge. Def

endant, a Mexi can de portee who illega lly ree ntere d the Unit ed States followingdeportation, challeng es the district cour t’s sentenc e
as unre asonable . Def

endant se eks a downwar d d ep arture from the se ntence imposed due to an alleg ed over statement of De fenda nt’s criminal history

or bec ause he will be deporte d afte r
c omp le tio n o f h is s e nte nc e . F or the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. On April 20, 2005, De fenda nt Rica rdo Rodriquez-Gomez was a rre sted by the Cleveland Police Depa

rtment for dr

ug traff icking under the alias Cesar Per ez-Rodriquez. Defe ndant had be en previously

convicted of

possession with intent to dist ribute her oin in 2001 and was sente nced to 57 months of incarc eration, after wh i ch h e wa s d eporte d on August 27, 2004. By Def endant’ s admi s s io n , h e f

a il e d to o b ta in p e r

mi s s io n to r e e n te r th e U n it e d St a te s f r o m th e Se c r e ta

r y ofNo. 06-3540

United States v. Rodriguez- Gomez Pag e 2 Homeland Sec urity

following his deportation. On M arc h 31, 2006, Def endant pleaded guilty

to one count of illeg al re entry

following deportation. The district cour

t sentence d Def

endant to 63 months of incar cer ation followed by three y ear s of su pe rv ise d r e le a se . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d a

tota l of fe ns e le ve l of

21 . T he ba se of

fe ns e level for illega l ree ntry

was 8. B eca

use of De fenda

nt’s previous drugtraff

icking and illeg al entry convictions, 16 levels wer e added. Def endant’ s g uilty plea qualified him for a three -point reduc tion, resulting in a total offe nse leve l of 21. The Guideline rang e for a total offe nse leve l of 21, criminal history cate g ory I V, is 57 to 71 months of incar cer ation. The district c ourt’s sentenc e of 63 months of imprisonment with a subs eq u en t three y ear supervised r elea se term f alls within the Guideline rang e. II. De fe nd ant n owa

pp e a ls h is s e nte nc e a s unr e a so na ble be c a us e the dis tr ict court

de nie d h is reque st for a downwar d depar ture. This cour

t review s sentence s for pr o cedur al and substantive
rea sonablene ss. United States v. Collington , 46 1 F .3 d 80 5, 80 8 (6 Ci r. 2 00 6) ; United States v. th W ebb, 403 F.3d 373, 383 ( 6 Cir. 2005). th A s en t en ce m ay

b e p ro ce d

ura l l y u n re as o n ab l e i f “ t h e d i s tri ct j u d ge fails to ‘consider ’ the other fac tors listed in 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) , and instead simply

selec ts what the judg e dee ms an appropr iate sente nce without such require d consideration.” A sentenc e may be conside red substantively

unrea sonable whe n the district court “ selec t [ s ] the se nte nc e arb itr ari ly , b a s[e s] th e se nte nc e on imp e rm iss ibl e fa c tor s, fail[s] to consider pe rtinent § 3553(a) fac tors or g iv[ es] an unrea sonable amount of weig ht to any pertinent fa ctor.” Colli ngton , 461 F.3d at 808 (citations omitted). A sentenc e fa lling within the prope rly calc ulatedNo. 06-3540

United States v. Rodriguez- Gomez Pag e 3 Guideline rang e is e ntitled to a rebuttable pr esumption of rea sonablene ss. United St ates v. W illiams , 43 6 F .3 d 7 06 , 7 08 (6 th Cir . 2 00 6) . T his c ourt g e ne ra lly do e s n ot r e vie w a

dis tr ic t ju dg e ’s re fu sa l to depar t downwar d under Chapte r 5 of the Sentencing Guidelines i n calc ulating the proper Guideline rang e. United States v. Puc kett, 422 F.3d 340, 345-46 (6 Cir. 2005). Howe ver, this rule doe s not th “pre vent our re view of defenda nt’s claim t hat hi s sentence is ex cessive ba sed on the district cour t’s
unrea sonable a

naly sis of the sec tion 3553(a) f actor s in their totality .” United States v. Mc Bride , 434 F.3d 470, 476- 77 (6 Cir. 2006). Al t h o ug h Def endant f rame s the issue here as a de nial of a th

“ do wnwa rd de pa rt ure, ” he a lso c ha lle ng e s th e re a so na ble ne ss o f h is s e nte nc e . T he re fo re , it is

a p p r o p r iate f

o r th is c o urt t o c o n s id e r

D e f e n d an t’ s d o w n w ar d

d e p artu r e c la im in

th e b r o a d e r

c o n te xt of the ove rall re asonable ness of his sentenc e. See id. at 474-75. III
. De fe n d a nt c o nt e n d s that th e dis tr ic t c ourt sh ou ld h ave g ra

nte d a do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e be c a us e his c ri min a l hi sto ry

is o ve rs tate d a

nd be c a us e he fa c e s d e po rt a tio n a ft e r t he c omp le tio n o f h is sentenc e. Def

endant maintains that his c riminal history is c omprised of off enses r elated to his drug habit an d that his past convictions are non-violent. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1) , the cour t may depar t if “the c riminal history

cate g ory substa ntially

over- repr esents the se riousness of the De fe nd ant’ s p a st c ri min a l c on du c t or the lik e lih oo d that th e De fe nd ant w ill c omm it o the r c ri me s.

. . .” Def endant also asser

ts that a downwar d depar

ture or va rianc e is war

rante d beca

use he w ill be immediately

deporte d following his incarc eration, thus renderinghim less of a threat. The dist ri ct co u rt did not err in re fusing to gr ant a downw ard de parture or a va rianc e. De fe nd ant’ s c ri min a l his tor y c a te g or y did no t su

bs tanti a lly ov e r- re pr e se nt the se ri ou sn e ss of his pa stNo. 06-3540

United States v. Rodriguez- Gomez Pag e 4 criminal conduc t or likelihood he will commit ot her c rimes. In Unites States v. Fletcher , 15 F.3d 553, 555 (6 Cir. 1994), this court ac knowledged that a depa rture w as justified wher e a c riminal th history cate g ory overstate s a def

endant’ s criminal re cord be cause of the ty pe of prior convic tions and their unre latedness to the c urre nt matter. The rec ord, however, makes it clear that Def endant’ s prior convictions are serious and dire ctly related to his curre nt conviction. Def endant wa s arr ested for

a drug -re lated off

ense a nd has bee n convicted of

illega l ree ntry int o th e Un ite d St a te s. De fe nd ant’ s p ri or c ri min a l r e c or d c on sis ts of a c on vic tio n for po sse ssi on wi th the intent to distribute heroin, and subseque ntly , deportation. By illega lly ree nteringthe country

and involving himself in illeg al drugactivity a sec ond time, Defe ndan t h as s hown a pr opensity for
rec idivism . The dis tri ctco urt re as o n ab l y re j ec t edDe fe n d an t ’s ar gu m en tth at h i s cr i m i n al h i s t o ry was overstate d. Fur ther, the district c ourt’s decision that Def endant’ s deporta

ble alien status doe s not support
a do wn wa rd de pa rt ur e or va ri anc e in t

his c a se is r e a so na

ble . D e fe nd ant w a s c on vic te d o f a c ri me that c an o nly

be c omm itt e d b y

a lie ns wh os e c on du c t make s th e m de po rt a ble : na me ly , il lega lly
ree nteringthe United States. See8 U.S.C. § 1326 (re entry of removed aliens). T his court has found th at“t h e S en t en ci n g C o m m i s s i o nt o o k d ep o rt ab l e a l i e ns t at u s i n t o ac co un twh en fo rm u l at i n g a g uideline t hat applies almost invariably to crimes, such a s 8 U.S.C. § 1326, that may be committed only by aliens whose c onduct makes the m deportable .” United States v. Ebolum, 72 F.3d 35, 38- 39 (6 Cir. 1995) (holding t hat “deportable alien status may not be a basis for downw ard de parture from th a sente nce imposed unde r a guideline that applies primar ily to aliens who ar e depor

table”)

. I n m e t i n g o ut t h e s e nte nc e , th e dis tr ic t ju dg e no te d th a t he c on sid e re d D e fe nd ant’ s argume nts ,No. 06-3540

United States v. Rodriguez- Gomez Pag e 5 but stated, “I

can’ t ignor e the f

act that the de fenda

nt has re- enter ed the United States f or a se cond time. He did serve 57 months for a drugconviction, was de ported an d wi t h i n l ess than a year he
c ome s ba c k to the Un ite d State s and wa s arr e ste d fo r ano the r dr ug c on vic tio n. ” Join t A pp e nd ix (“ JA” ) at 88
. Th e dis tr ic t judg e a pp ro pr iate ly c on sid e re d th e se fa c tor s a s w e ll a s th os e se t f or th i n 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). SeeJ A at 83-89. The rec ord show s t h at the district judg e conside red Def endant’ s criminal and e mploy ment history , family

circ umstances, e ducation, hea lth an d f in a n c ia l status, his hist ory of drugabuse, the nature of the off ense, the kinds of sentenc es ava ilable, and the need f or the sente nce imposed. The district judge chose a sente nce w ithin the Guideline rang e, 63
months . T he re is n o ind ic a tio n in t he re c or d th a t th is s e nte nc e is e ith e r p ro c e dura lly or su bs tanti ve ly
unrea sonable. We AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.