T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a ss ista n c e in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t20,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. J OSE ESTEBAN M END EZM O N TES, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 2323 ( D. C. No . CR- 0 6 - 1 2 4 5 BB)

(D .N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. ** D efe ndant - A ppel l antJ os é Est eban M éndez M ont es pl eade d gui l tyt o i l l egal r eentr yaft erdepor t at i on i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) ( 1) & ( 2) , and § 1326( b) ( 2) , and w as s ent ence d t o for ty - s i x m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entand thr ee y ea rs’ un su p erv ised release . O n ap p ea l, M r. M én d ez arg u es th at th e d istri ct co u rt i ncorr ect l yanal y zed hi s m ot i on fora var i ance underU ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543- 2 -

U . S. 220 ( 2005) , as a mot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e underthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . M r . M éndez al s o ar gues thathi s s ent ence i s pr ocedur al l yand s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e underB ooker . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a), w e c o n clud e tha t th e d istri ct co u rt p rop erlyan aly ze d M r. M én d ez ’s m o ti o n u n d er the stan d ard fo r a d o w n w ard d e p a rtu re a n d th a t M r. M é n d e z ’s s e n ten c e is p ro c e d u ra llya n d su b sta n tiv e ly r e a s o n a b l e . W e t h e r e fo r e a ffi r m. Backg r ound M r . M éndez pl eade d gui l t yon J une 20, 2006. T he pr e- s ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eport( PSR ) char act er i zed hi s pr i orconvi ct i on foraggr avat ed as s aul tw i t h a dea dl yw eapon a s a “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” and r ecomm ended thatt he di s t r i ctcourtenhanc e hi s bas e offens e l evel bys i xt een l evel s . W i th the e nh a nc e menta nd a t hr e e - l e ve l r e du c t i on fo ra c c e pt a nc e of r e s po ns i bi l i ty , t he PSR concl uded thatM r . M éndez had a t ot al offe ns e l evel of tw enty - one and a cr i m i nal h isto ryc a teg o ryIII. It c a lcu late d a n a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s s e n ten c e o f fo rty -six to fi fty - s even mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entw i th tw o t o thr ee y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e. O n Sept ember29, 2006, M r . M éndez fi l ed a “ Sent enci ng M emora ndum and M ot i on forD ow nw ar d D epartur e. ” R . D oc. 17. I n the fi l i ng, he r ai s ed thr ee ar gum ent s fora l ow ers ent ence : ( 1) hi s conducti n r etur ni ng t o the U ni t ed St at es w as pr eci pi t at ed s ol el ybyhi s ferventdes i r e t o as s i s ti n the fi nanci al w el l - bei ng- 3 - of hi s fami l yand thus w as a l es s erharm w i thi n the meani ng of U . S. S. G . § 5K 2. 11 and 5K 2. 0; (2) h is C ri m inal H ist o ryC ateg o ryo f III si g n ifi ca n tl yo v err epr es ent s bot h t he s er i ous nes s of hi s hi s t or yand the lik e lih o o d th a t h e w ill c o m m it f u rt h e r c ri m e s , U .S .S .G . § 4A 1. 3. ; and ( 3) t he combi nat i on of thes e fa ct or s t akes the ca s e outof the h e a rt la n d o f

ille g a l r e e n tr yc a s e s , s e e § 5 K 2 .0 , c o m m e n t.; U ni t ed St at es v. K oon, 518 U . S. 81, 111- 112 ( 1996) ; U ni t ed S tat es v . S k lar, 9 2 0 F . 2 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 6 (1st C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). I d. at1. H e al s o not ed thatt he di s tr i ctcour tcoul d cons i derthe fa ct or s i n 18 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a), b u t th e m o ti o n ’s co n clus ion u n m ist ak ab lyso u g h t a do w n w ard departur e. I d. at10. O n O ct ober23, 2006, the di s tr i ctcourtconduct ed a s ent enci ng hear i ng and s t at ed thati thad r ead the mot i on. O therthan the obj ect i ons l i s t ed i n hi s m ot i on, M r . M éndez di d notobj ectt o the ca l cul at i on of t he advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange. D efe ndant ’ s couns el then r enew ed hi s m ot i on for a dow nw ar d departur e, and al s o i nj ect ed an a r gum entbas ed on B ooker , s t at i ng:

“ B u t I th in k , u lti m a tely , I w o u ld re lym o re o n B o o k e r g ro u n d s th a n fa m ily circu m stan ce s. . . . B u t I w o u ld as k the C o u rtto d ep art i n this case . ” S en t. T r. (IV R . ) at 3. D efen d an t’ s co u n sel an d the d istri ct co u rtthen d iscu ssed M r. M é n d e z ’s c ri m in a l h is to ry a n d h is p ri o r c o n v ic tio n fo r a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt. A ft ert he exc hange r egar di ng M r . M éndez ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory , the di s tr i ct cour ts t at ed: A ll righ t. W e ll, h is c rim in a l re c o rd , fr a n k ly , p e rsu a d e s m e th a t a d o wn wa r d d e p a r tu r e u n d e rBo o k e ri s n o twe l l t a k e n . He ’ s g o ttwo- 4 -

assaul t s and co ntr oll ed sub st ance v i olat i on s. U nli ke the l ast d e fe n d a n t , h e r e a l l yd o e s n o th a v e a c r i mi n a l r e c o r d th a tg i v e s me a n yc o n fi d e n c e t h a th e wi l l n o tb e b a c k i n o u rs y s t e m. I d . a t5 . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tt h e n d i s c u s s e d th e a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l ta n d r o b b e ry co n v ict ion s w ith M r. M én d ez h im self. Id. at5 -6. T h en , the d istri ct co u rt i m pos ed i t s s ent ence , s t at i ng:

T he C our thas r evi ew ed the pr es ent ence r eportand fa ctual fi ndi ngs and has al s o cons i der ed the Sent enci ng G ui del i ne r ecomm endat i ons , as w el l as the fa ct or s s etfor th i n 18 U ni t ed St at es C o d e , S e c tio n 3 5 5 3 . T h e o ffe n se lev e l is 2 1 , the c rim in a l h isto ryis cat egory3, t he gui del i ne i m pr i s onm entr ange i s , ther efor e, 46 t o 57 m on t hs. T he C our tnot es t hatdefe ndantr eent er ed the U ni t ed St at es aft erhavi ng pr evi ous l ybeen de por t ed fol l ow i ng an aggr avat ed fe l ony c o n v ictio n . T h e re fo re . . . . th e D e fe n d a n t . . . w ill b e [ se n ten c e d ] to serve a term of 4 6 m on t hs. I d. at7- 8. D i s cus s i on M r . M éndez now ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed byappl y i ng a G ui del i nes departur e ana l y s i s t o hi s m ot i on and thatt he forty - s i x m onth s ent ence is p ro c e d u ra llya n d su b sta n tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le. W ith re g a rd to h is first a rg u m e n t, M r. M é n d e z fa ile d to o bje c t a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g , s o re v ie w is fo r p la in e rr o r. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . R o m ero , – F . 3 d – , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 8 7 4 2 3 1 , at *3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). M r . M éndez r el i es upon ourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. B egay , 470 F. 3d 964 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) , w her e w e exc us ed a de fenda nt ’ s fai l ur e t o obj ectbas ed on theM r . M éndez r eques t ed thatw e hol d thi s m at t eri n abey ance pendi ng the 1 Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i ons i n R i t a and Cl ai borne v. U ni t ed St at es . A pl t . B r . at 2 5 . T h a t re q u e st is n o w m o o t. - 5 - di s t r i ctcourt ’ s novel ( and i ncorr ect ) vi ew of the G ui del i nes , a vi ew thatcouns el c o u ld n o t an ticip a te b e fo re it w a s to o late to o bjec t. B e g a yis fa c tu a lly in a p p o site . H e re , M r. M é n d e z sp e c ifica llya rg u e d fo r a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re in hi s w r i t t en mot i on, even c i t i ng t he r el evantdepartur e pr ovi s i ons of the G ui del i nes . A l t hough he i nvoked B ookeratthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, he s t i l l as ked th e d istric t co u rt to “ d e p a rt.” C o n se q u e n tly , w h e n th e d istric t co u rt n o ted th a t it di d nott hi nk M r . M éndez w as ent i t l ed t o a “dow nw ar d departur e, ” i tconduct ed exac t l yt he ana l y s i s M r . M éndez as ked for , s o ther e w as no err or , pl ai n or ot herw i s e. R egar dl es s , even i f ther e w er e err or , w e w oul d notr ecogni ze i tunder t he p l ai n err or st and ard becau se i tdid not “s eri ou sl yaffect[] the fa i rness , i n t e g r i t y , o rp u b l i c r e p u t a t i o n ” o f th e p r o c e e d i n g s . S e e R o m e r o , 2 0 0 7 WL 1874231, at*5. W i t h regard t o M r. M énd ez’s argum ent that the d i stri ctcou rtno nethel ess i m pos ed a s ent ence t hati s pr ocedur al l yand s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e under B o o k e r, w e a re u n p e rsu a d e d . W e h a v e n o ted th a t re a so n a b len e ss h a s b o th pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve el ement s . See U ni t ed St at es v. C age, 451 F. 3d 585, 591 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . I n R i t a v. U ni t ed St at es , 127 S. C t . 2456 ( 2007) , t he 1 Supr eme C our ts ugges t ed thatr eas onabl enes s r evi ew i s t he s ame as r evi ew for abus e of di s cr et i on. I d. at2465. M r . M éndez fai l ed t o obj ectt o the pr ocedur al- 6 -

r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, s o hi s B ookerpr ocedur al r eas onabl enes s chal l enge i s s ubj ectt o r evi ew forpl ai n err or . See R om er o, 2007 W L 1874231, at*3. M r . M éndez ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourtfai l ed t o anal y ze the s en tenc ing fa ctors in § 3 5 5 3 (a), that itfa il ed to ex p lai n w h yitrejected M r. M éndez ’ s m ot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e, and thati tfai l ed gene r al l yt o gi ve a s u ffic ie n t e x p la n a tio n fo r h is fo rt y -s ix m o n th s e n te n c e . I n R i t a, t he Supr eme C our tm ade c l earthata di s tr i ctcour tneed onl ys et for t h enough expl anat i on t o “s at i s fythe appe l l at e courtthat[i t ] has cons i der ed t he part i es ’ ar gum ent s and has a r eas oned bas i s forexer ci s i ng [i t s ] ow n l egal deci s i onm aki ng author i t y . ” 127 S. C t . at2468. A ddi t i onal l y , the C our tnot ed that “w hen a j udge dec i des s i m pl yt o appl ythe G ui del i nes t o a part i cul arcas e, doi ng s o w i l l notnece s s ar i l yr equi r e l engthyexpl anat i on. ” I d. T he C our ts t at ed that “[t ] he l aw l eave s m uch, i n t hi s r es pect , t o the j udge’ s ow n pr ofes s i onal j udgm ent . ” I d. I n t hi s cas e, t he di s t r i ctcour tengage d i n a col l oquyw i th bot h M r . M éndez and hi s couns el r egar di ng t he ar gum ent s fora dow nw ar d departur e. I tr ej ect ed th o se a rg u m e n ts b a se d o n M r. M é n d e z ’s c rim in a l re c o rd a n d th e lik e lih o o d o f h is rec idivism . B ase d o n the re co rd, i t i s clea r th at th e d istri ct co u rtco n side red M r. M é n d e z ’s m o tiv e fo r re tu rn in g to th e U n ited S tate s a n d th e a typ ica lityo f h is co n v ict ion fo r ag g rav ated assa u ltw ith a d ea d lyw ea p o n . T h e d istri ct co u rt i ndi cat ed thati thad r ead the mot i on w hi ch addr es s ed M r . M éndez ’ s m ot i ve, s ee- 7 -

R . D oc. 17, at4- 6, and i thear d ar gum enton the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the co n v ict ion fo r ag g rav ated assa u lt , S en t. T r. (IV R . ) at 4-5 . T h e d istri ct co u rt in d ica ted th a t ith a d c o n sid e re d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs, a n d th e re is n o re a so n to bel i eve i tfor gott he fa ct s of the ca s e as i tdecl i ned t o varyfr om the r ecomm ended G ui del i nes s ent ence . A s i n R i t a, the r ecor d i n thi s cas e makes cl earthatthe di s t r i ctcourtcons i der ed M r . M éndez ’ s ar gum ent s , eval uat ed the evi dence , and ex erc ised it s o w n d iscreti o n in ap p ly ing the § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors. T h e d istri ct co u rt “s i m pl yfound thes e ci r cumst ance s i ns uffi ci entt o w arr anta s ent ence l ow erthan t he G ui del i nes r ange. ” See Ri t a, 127 S. C t . at2469. W e conc l ude thatthe di s t r i ct cou rtdid not abuse i t s di scr et i on w i th regard t o it s sent encing p rocedu re, and so t her e i s no err or , pl ai n orot herw i s e. L ik e w ise w e c o n c lu d e th a t M r. M é n d e z ’s s e n ten c e is s u b sta n tiv e ly reas on able. A sent ence w i t hin the ad vis oryG uidel i nes range carri es a pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . U ni t ed St at es v. K r i s t l , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1054 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ; s ee a l s o R i t a, 127 S. C t . at2462 ( uphol di ng the appe l l at e presum pti on of reasonab l eness) . M r. M énd ez’s sent ence o f fo rty -s i x m on ths’ i m pr i s onm enti s att he l ow end of the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange. H e ar gues that t his sent ence is t oo l on g b ecause h e suffered an abu si ve ch i l dh oo d an d b ecause t he vi ct i m of hi s aggr avat ed as s aul tw as abus i ve. T he di s tr i ctcour tcons i der ed th e se a rg u m e n ts a n d fo u n d th a t th e yw e re in su fficie n t to ju stif ya re d u c tio n in h is s ent ence , gi ven M r . M éndez ’ s pr opens i tyt o comm i tcr i m e. W e mustdefe rt o t he- 8 -

di s t r i ctcourt , w hos e exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on w as w el l w i thi n the bounds of p erm issi b le ch o ice. Se e U n it ed S tat es v . N ickl, 4 2 7 F . 3 d 1 2 8 6 , 1 3 0 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge