T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce 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. 

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

### A u gu s t15,2007 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. OSCA R N EVA REZ- NEV AR EZ, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 2281 D . N ew M exi co ( D. Ct . No . CR - 0 5 - 2 5 8 5 - L H)

B efor e K E L L Y , Mc WI L L I A MS and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *

O s c a r N e v a re z -N e v a re z p le d g u ilty to ille g a l r e e n tr ya f te r d e p o rt a tio n , a vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 2) . H e appe al s fr om t he s ent ence i m pos ed, c la im in g it is u n re a s o n a b le . W e a ffir m . I . BA CKGROUND N evar ez- N evar ez w as arr es t ed i n N ew M exi co fori l l egal r eentryi nt o the U ni t ed St at es aft erhe w as pr evi ous l ydepor t ed bas ed on a c onvi ct i on foran aggr avat ed fe l onys t emm i ng fr om a tr aff i c al t er cat i on i n w hi ch he poi nt ed aIn e ssen ce , N ev are z-N ev are z re q u ested a v arian ce . A v arian ce o cc u rs 2 “[w ] hen a c our tenhanc es ordetr act s fr om t he r ecomm ended r ange thr ough appl i cat i on of § 3553( a) fac t or s . ” Un itedS ta tes v . A ten c io , 476 F. 3d 1099, 1101 n. 1 ( 10t h C i r . 2007) . O n t he otherhand, a depa r tur e occ ur s “w hen a c our tr eac hes a s ent ence above orbel ow t he r ecomm ended G ui del i nes r ange thr ough appl i cat i on of C hapt er s FourorFi ve of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . ” Id. -2- fi r earm atanotherm ot or i s t . H e pl ed gui l tyt o the i l l egal r eentrychar ge. I n hi s s ent enci ng m emora ndum , N evar ez- N evar ez r eques t ed the di s tr i ct cour tt o i m pos e a s ent ence bel ow t he gui del i nes r ange. H e ar gued the s ent enci ng fac t or s l i s t ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) w arr ant ed a l ow ers ent ence t han the g u idelines rec o m m en d ed . W ith o u t spe cifica ll ytr ea ti n g ea ch o f th e fac tors 2 enumer at ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , t he j udge i m pos ed a s ent ence att he l ow erend o f th e g u id e lin e ra n g e , fif ty -se v e n m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. N e v a re z -N e v a re z n o w c laim s th e se n ten c e is p ro c e d u ra llyu n re a so n a b le beca us e the j udge fa i l ed t o s uffi ci ent l ys uppl yt he r eas oni ng fort he s el ect ed se n ten c e . H e a lso a rg u e s th e len g th o f th e se n ten c e is s u b sta n tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le u n d er B ookerv. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ). I I . DI S CU S S I ON

“ R e a s o n a b le n e s s h a s b o th p ro c e d u ra l a n d s u b s ta n tiv e c o m p o n e n ts .” Uni t ed Stat es v. C age , 45 1 F . 3d 58 5, 59 1 (10th C i r. 20 06 ). P rocedu ral reas on ableness r equi r es a s ent ence t o be ca l cul at ed “ut i l i zi ng a l egi t i m at e met hod. ” Id. T hu s, w her e a s ent ence i s w i t hi n t he pr oper l ycal cul at ed gui del i ne r ange a nd the di s t r i ct cour thas s t at ed i t s r eas oni ng under§ 3553( a) , t he s ent ence w i l l be cons i der ed-3-

p ro c e d u ra llyre a so n a b le. N e v a re z -N e v a re z c o n c e d e s th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rly cal cul at ed the gui del i ne r ange. H ow ever , hi s compl ai nt s aboutthe s uffi ci encyof t he co urt ’s st at ed rat i on al e un der § 35 53 (a) am ou nt t o a p rocedu ral reas on ableness c h a lle n g e . Uni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez - Juar ez , 4 4 6 F . 3 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 5 , 1 1 1 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( re m a n d in g fo r fa ilu re to s ta te § 3 5 5 3 (a ) r e a s o n s fo r s e n te n c e w ith in ra n g e ). H i s m o r e g e n e r a l l y s t yl e d c o m p l a i n to f “ r e a s o n a b l e n e s s ” i s e s s e n t i a l l y a s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s c h a lle n g e . A . St andar d of R evi ew N evar ez- N evar ez fai l ed t o obj ectt o the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ent enci ng pr ocedur e; t her efor e, hi s pr ocedur al r eas onabl enes s obj ect i ons w i l l be r evi ew ed fo r plain e rror. United S tates v. R om ero , __ F . 3 d __ ( 1 0 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) , 2 0 0 7 WL 1874231 at*3. “W e fi nd pl ai n err oronl yw hen ther e i s ( 1) err or , ( 2) thati s pl ai n, (3) w hich affects subst anti al ri gh t s, and (4) w hich ser i ou sl yaffects the fa i rness , i nt egr i t yorpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Id. at*5. O n t he otherhand, N evar ez- N evar ez pr es ent ed s uffi ci entar gum enti n the d i s t r i c tc o u r tt o p r e s e r v e h i s s u b s t a n t i v e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s a r g u me n t . T h e r e fo r e , we w ill r e v ie w th a t c la im fo r h a rm le s s e rr o r. See Fed. R . C r i m . P. 52. T o s at i s fyt he h a r ml e s s e r r o rt e s t , t h e r e mu s tb e a n e rr o ra ffe c t i n g s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s . F e d . R. C ri m . P . 5 2 (a). B . P rocedu ral R easona bleness T h e d istric t co u rt w a s re q u ire d to “ sta te in o p e n c o u rt th e re a so n s fo r its-4-

i m pos i t i on of the part i cul ars ent ence , and . . . the r eas on fori m pos i ng [the] s e n te n c e a t a p a rt ic u la r p o in t w ith in th e [ g u id e lin e ] r a n g e .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (c ). T he fa ct or s t o be appl i ed fr om § 3553( a) i ncl ude the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of t he offens e; t he hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs of the defendant ; the nee d forthe s ent ence i m pos ed t o r efl ectt he s er i ous nes s of the offens e, pr om ot e r es pectfort he l aw , pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entforthe offens e, affor d adequa t e det err ence , pr ot ect t he publ i c, and pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d educa t i onal orvocat i onal t r ai ni ng, m edi cal car e orot hercorr ect i onal tr eatm enti n the mosteffect i ve m a n n e r; p e rtin e n t g u id e lin e s; p e rtin e n t p o licysta tem e n ts; th e n e e d to a v o id u n w a n te d s e n te n c e d is p a ri tie s ; a n d th e n e e d to p ro v id e re s titu tio n . See 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 55 3(a) . N evarez-N evarez argues t he d i stri ctcou rtdid not s uffi ci entl yadd res s th e se fa c to rs in o p e n c o u rt. In sent encing N evarez-N evarez, the d i stri ctcou rtst at ed as fo l l ow s: Y ou’ ve s penta y eari n pr i s on i n ‘ 98 beca us e of a theftof an aut om obi l e, and y ou getout , and y ou getarr es t ed and c onvi ct ed of aggr avat ed as s aul tbypoi nt i ng a gun ats om ebody . Y ouratt orney m i nim i zes . . . t hat cr i m e of a ssaul tw i th a d eadlyw eapo n b ecause y ou di dn’ thur tanybody , buti f y ou have e verhad a gun poi nt ed at y ou i n anger , oras a vi ct i m of a r obbery , ori n s om e s i m i l ars i tuat i on, y o u m ig h t re a lize th e sc a rs th a t itp u ts o n th e v ictim . It’s n o t a chi l d’ s game t o poi nta gun atanotherper s on. . . . A nd I w i l l not mi n i mi z e t h a ta s y o u ra t t o rn e yh a s . I ti s s a d y o u h a v e n ’ ts p e n tt i me w ith y o u r c h ild re n , b u t w e m a k e c h o ic e s in life , in o u r l iv e s . . . . A nd y ou m ade a choi ce byobt ai ni ng a s t ol en gun. I don’ tknow how y ou goti t , buti tw as s t ol en. Y ou us ed i tt o poi ntats om ebody , and t hat ’ s a choi ce y ou m ade. . . . Y ou have t o l earn t o m ake the r i ght c h o ice s. A n d if

y o u d o n ’t lea rn th a t, y o u r life is g o in g to c o n tin u e to be the w ayi thas been. So I have e m pathyfory ourchi l dr en for-5-

havi ng notknow n t hei rfather , butnotfory ou. (R . V o l. I V a t 5 -6 .) T h e d istri ct co u rtm ad e this statem en t after h ea ri n g N ev are z-N ev are z’s ar gum enton t he § 3553( a) fac t or s , w hi ch r epea t ed the ar gum ent s advanc ed i n a pr i ors ent enci ng m emora ndum . Fi r s t , N evar ez- N evar ez a r gued a l ow ers ent ence w o u ld ad eq u atelyd eter h im , an d the p u b li c the reb yp rotec ted, fro m fu ture cr i m i nal act i vi t ybeca us e of hi s s i x m onth pr e- s ent enci ng i ncar cer at i on on the ill e g a l re e n tryc h a rg e , w h ich re su lted in a n u n d e sira b le s e p a ra tio n f ro m h is fami l y . H e al s o as s ert ed, al t hough he has “no demonstr at ed nee d of educ at i onal orvocat i onal t r ai ni ng” or“medi cal tr eatm ent , ” hi s “extr eme anxi ety ” r es ul t i ng f ro m h is in c a rc e ra tio n w o u ld b e b e st tre a ted b yse n d in g h im to h is h o m e in M exi co. ( R . V ol . I , D oc. 15 at4. ) Fi nal l y , he ar gued U SSG §2L 1. 2 s houl d notbe us ed t o enhanc e hi s bas e offens e l evel by16 l evel s fora pr i or“cr i m e of vi ol ence ” beca us e the pr i orfel onyas s aul tdi d notr es ul ti n phy s i cal harm . H e mai nt ai ned t he goal of uni form i t yi n s ent enci ng w oul d be underm i ned bythe appl i cat i on of t he sam e enh ancem ent that i s appli ed to m urderer s and forci ble s ex o ffen ders. “[Sec t i on 3553( c) ’ s ] r equi r ement[thatdi s tr i ctcourt ’ s s t at e thei rr eas oni ng] r efl ect s s ound j udi ci al pr act i ce. J udi ci al deci s i ons ar e r eas oned dec i s i ons . ” R ita v. Uni t ed Stat es , 127 S. C t . 2456, 2468 ( 2007) . H ow ever , the Supr eme C our thas d e c lin e d to “ . . . rea d th e sta tu te ( o r [ its] p re c e d e n t) a s in sis tin g u p o n a f u ll opi ni on i n everycas e. ” Id. R a th e r,-6-

[ t]h e a p p ro p ria ten e ss o f b re v ityo r le n g th , co n c ise n e ss o r d e tail, w hen t o w r i t e, w hatt o s ay , depends upon ci r cumst ance s . Som et i m es a ju d icia l o p in io n re sp o n d s to e v e rya rg u m e n t; so m e tim e s it d o e s n o t; s om et i m es a j udge s i m pl yw r i t es the w or d “gr ant ed, ” or“deni ed” on t he fa ce of

a mot i on w hi l e r el y i ng upon cont extand the part i es ’ pr i or a rg u m e n ts to m a k e th e re a so n s c lea r. T h e law lea v e s m u c h , in th is re sp e c t, t o th e ju d g e ’s o w n p ro fe ss io n a l ju d g m e n t. Id . G iv e n th e c o n tex t, w e th in k th e d istric t co u rt’s s tate m e n t su fficie n tly s at i s fi ed § 3553( c) . “W her e the defendantorpr os ecut orpr es ent s nonfr i vol ous r eas ons fori m pos i ng a . . . s ent ence [out s i de the gui del i ne r ange] , . . . the j udge w i l l nor m al l y. . . expl ai n w hyhe has r ej ect ed thos e ar gum ent s . Som et i m es the circu m stan ce s w il l call fo r a b ri ef ex p lana ti o n ; som eti m es th eyw il l call fo r a l engthi erexpl anat i on. ” Id. A l t hough “the j udge mi ghthave s ai d m or e, ” w e thi nk t he r ecor d s how s the di s t r i ctcourtl i s t ened t o the r el at i vel ys i m pl e and ge ner al a rg u m e n ts N e v a re z -N e v a re z a d v a n c e d . Id. a t 2 4 6 9 (n o tin g c o n c e p tu a l sim p licity o f th e c a se a s re liev in g th e c o u rt o f th e n e e d to m o re e x ten siv e lyd e tail its r at i onal e) . T he courtexpl i ci t l yaddr es s ed the mostcompl ex ar gum entN evar ezN e v a re z a d v a n c e d re g a rd in g th e a g g ra v a ted fe lo n y , o b se rv in g th e o ffe n se c o u ld v e ry w e ll h a v e inju re d th e v ic tim , a lb e it n o t p h y s ic a lly. A s to the o ther fac tors, the c o u rtstat ed itco n side red the § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors and deni ed the mot i on; appar ent l y , “[the di s tr i ctj udge] m us thave be l i eved that t her e w as notm uch more t o s ay . ” Id . B e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt su fficie n tly e x p lain e d its re a so n in g fo r N e v a re z -N e v a re z ’s s e n ten c e , the se n ten c e isA tor al ar gum ent , couns el ar gued fora di s t i nct i on betw een pr i or 3 col l oqui es betw een the courtand a de fenda ntand the ac tual pr onouncementof j udgm ent . W e dec l i ne t o acc epts uch a t echni cal rul e; r ather , partof the r el evant ci r cumst ance s t hatw i l l nece s s ar i l yi nform t he di s tr i ctj udge’ s pr ofes s i onal j ud gm ent on t he ex t ent and d et ai l of reasoning i s the co ntextof the proceed i ng s, i ncl udi ng anys t at ement s m ade t o the defendantpr i ort o s ent enci ng. -7- proced ural l y reas on able. D i scerning no err or, t he p l ai n err or t estfai l s att he fir st 3 pr ong as t o t he pr ocedur al r eas onabl enes s chal l enge. C . S ub st anti ve R easona bleness A s w e r ecogni zed i n C age , a pr ocedur al l yr eas onabl e s ent ence m ay nevert hel es s be s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. 541 F. 3d at591. B eca us e N evar ezN evar ez c oncede s t he courts ent ence d hi m w i thi n the pr oper l ycal cul at ed gui del i ne r ange, a r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s att ache s t o the s e n te n c e . Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). N evar ez- N evar ez mayr ebutt he pr es um pt i on byr efe r ence t o the fa ct or s of § 3 5 5 3 (a ). Id. N evar ez- N evar ez’ s s ubs t ant i ve ar gum entm i rr or s t he ar gum ent s advanc ed befor e the di s t r i ctcour t . W e di s cern no err ori n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r es ol ut i on of t hes e ar gum ent s . Fi r s t , w e agr ee a l ow ers ent ence w oul d notadequa t el ydet er N evar ez- N evar ez f

r om futur e r eentr i es . A s he expl ai ned t o the di s tr i ctcourt , he w as m ot i vat ed t o ent ert hi s countrybeca us e hi s chi l dr en w er e her e w hi l e he w as i n M exico; up on his dep ort at i on , t hese sam e m oti vati ng ci rcum st ances w i l l persi st an d the b est p red ict o r of b eh av ior i s p ast b eh av ior.-8-

H i s a r g u m e n tt h a th i s s e n t e n c e s h o u l d b e s h o r t e n e d t o “ r e l i e v e h i s a n x i e t y” i s exce pt i onal l yw eak. I ndeed, he conc eded i n hi s s ent enci ng m emora ndum that h e h a d n o s p e c ific m e d ic a l c o n d itio n s w h ic h re q u ir e d tr e a tm e n t. W e ar e al s o unper s uaded byhi s att empt s t o “mi ni m i ze” hi s pr i or a g g ra v a ted fe lo n y . A lth o u g h – fo rtu n a tely– N e v a re z -N e v a re z d id n o t ac tu a lly di s char ge the fi r earm dur i ng t he tr aff i c al t er cat i on, w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ct cour tt hatpoi nt i ng a fi r earm ats om eone i s “nota chi l d’ s game. ” Such ac t i on cons t i tut es a s er i ous fel onyent ai l i ng s i gni fi cantr i s ks of s er i ous bodi l yi nj ur yor d e a th . T h e g u id e lin e s s y ste m ica llya n d sy ste m a tica llyc a tag o riz e b e h a v io r th a t is s uffi ci ent l ydanger ous t o w arr antan enha ncementof puni s hm ent . T he di s tr i ct c o u rt is in a u n iq u e p o sitio n to p e rso n a lize th o se fa c to rs in a c c o rd a n c e w ith § 3553 and adj us tt he s ent ence acc or di ngl y . W hen gui dance fr om the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on – expr es s ed i n t he gui del i nes – coi nci des w i th the j udgm entof a d istric t co u rt o n a n a p p ro p ria te s e n ten c e , w e w ill p re su m e th e se n ten c e is re a s o n a b le . R ita , 127 S. C t . at2467 ( “[W ] her e j udge and Com m i s s i on b o th det erm i ne thatt he G ui del i nes s ent ence s i s an appr opr i at e s ent ence forthe ca s e at h a n d , tha t se n ten c e lik e lyre flec ts th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs . . . . ” ); Kris tl , 437 F. 3d at1054 ( s ent ence s w i t hi n t he pr oper l ycal cul at ed gui del i ne r ange a r e ent i t l ed t o a r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s ) . W e s ee no r eas on t o di s countthe p re s u m p tio n in th is c a s e .-9-

AFF I RM ED . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge