T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata an d co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### A u gu s t4,2006 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. E DUAR DO S OT O- S OT O, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 2256 ( D . N . M) ( D. C. No . CR - 0 5 - 6 5 9 - L H)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and M c CO NNELL , C ir c u it J u d g e s .

E duar do Sot o- Sot o appea l s hi s s ent ence of 57 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entfor ill e g a l re e n tryb ya fe lo n fo llo w in g d e p o rta tio n . H e a rg u e s th a t th is s e n ten c e is unr eas onabl yl ong beca us e the di s tr i ctcourtfai l ed t o cons i dert he mi t i gat i ng e v id e n c e h e p re se n ted d u rin g a se n ten c in g h e a rin g . T h e d istric t co u rt c lea rly under s t ood hi s ar gum entt hathi s s ent ence s houl d be out s i de the advi s oryr ange2

pr ovi ded byt he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , butdeci ded t o i m pos e a sen tenc e w ith in the ad v isoryran g e. B ec au se se n tenc es in side the a d v isory gui del i nes r ange a r e pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e and Sot o- Sot o does notr ebutthat pr es um pt i on, w e AF F I RM the d istri ct co u rt ’s sen tenc ing o rde r. O n February26, 2005, Sot o- Sot o w as arr es t ed i n C ol um bus , N ew M exi co byB or derPat r ol agent s . T he age nt s di s cover ed he w as a ci t i zen of M exi co w ho h a d b e e n d e p o rte d f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s in 1 9 9 8 a f ter se rv in g a 2 4 -m o n th s e n te n c e fo r fe lo n ya s s a u lt in W a s h in g to n S ta te . S o to-S o to en tered into a p lea a g ree m en t and p led g u il tyto il lega l r ee n try aft erdepor t at i on byan aggr avat ed fe l on, 8 U . S. C . §§ 1326( 1- 2) , ( b) ( 2) , and the Pr e- Sent ence R epor t( “PSR ”) s t at ed thathi s adj us t ed offens e l evel w as 21, aft era t hr ee l evel deduct i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty . A s a r es ul tof pr evi ous c o n v ictio n s fo r p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d e liv e r c o c a in e , m isd e m e a n o r a ss a u lt, sh o p li fti n g , an d h is felon yassa u ltco n v ict ion , S o to-S o to’s crim inal h ist o ry cat ego ryw as I V . T he P S R al so no t ed h i s pri or conv i ct i on s for cr i m i nal tres pass, d r i v i n g w i t h a s u s p e n d e d l i c e n s e , v e h i c l e p r o w l i n g , a n d l o i t e r i n g fo rd ru g a c t i v i t y, buts t at ed thatt hes e di d notenhanc e hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egory . B as ed on an offe ns e l evel of 21 and a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I V , t he advi s or ygui del i ne ra n g e is 5 7 to 7 1 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. A l t hough he di d notobj ectt o the PSR ’ s det erm i nat i on of the pr oper gui del i ne r ange, Sot o- Sot o fi l ed a mot i on ar gui ng thatt he di s tr i ctcourthad the3

d i s c r e t i o n t o s e n t e n c e h i m b e l o w t h e g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e fo l l o wi n g th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , and that cons i der at i on of the s ent enci ng fac t or s i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) s houl d l ead the cour tt o do s o. Speci fi cal l y , Sot o- Sot o ar gued thata s ent ence w i thi n the gui del i nes r ange w oul d be i m pr operbeca us e: ( 1) he onl ycame t o the U ni t ed St at es t o s ee hi s daught eron t he occ as i on of herqui nceñe r a, a ce l ebr at i on of her fi ft eenth bi rthd ay , and , as such, his i l l egal r eentryw as l ess s eri ou s than m ost effor t s t o s neak i nt o t he countr y ; ( 2) hi s depr i ved chi l dhood, w hi ch i ncl uded sexual and p hy si cal abu se, m i t i gated hi s cr i m i nal behav i or; (3) his pri or offen ses, w hich i ncluded drug d eal i ng and assaul t , w ere the resul tof h i s addict i on t o d rugs, forw hi ch he ha s s i nce r ece i ved tr eatm ent ; and ( 4) he had pr evi ous l ybeen i n the U n ited S tate s illeg a llyfo r a lo n g p e rio d o f tim e a n d , thu s, h e is “ a n A m e ric a n in everys ens e of the w or d, exce ptt he narr ow l egal defi ni t i on. ” C ouns el des cr i bed Sot o- Sot o’ s s t or yas a “r eal s ad one . . . perhaps the s addes tI ’ ve come acr os s ”. T he di s t r i ctcour tw as uni m pr es s ed w i th Sot o- Sot o’ s ar gum ent s . D ur i ng t he s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he courtnot ed thatSot o- Sot o had notr ece i ved anycr i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt s fors ever al convi ct i ons , i ncl udi ng one thatw as drug r el at ed, and t hatSot o- Sot o’ s gui l t ypl ea r es ul t ed i n a s ubs t ant i al l yl ow ers ent enci ng r ange t han he w oul d have r ece i ved otherw i s e. Fur ther , i ts t at ed thathi s pr i or c o n v ictio n s re v e a led th a t h e h a d w o rk e d a s a d ru g d e a ler a n d th a t th is m a d e h im les s s ym p a th e tic th a n so m e o n e w h o w o rk e d in o th e r fo rm s o f lab o r. F in a lly , it4

d ism issed the im p o rt an ce o f S o to-S o to’s “sa d story , ” n o ti n g that “a ll o f th ese are s ad s t or i es ” and thati tw as “noti m pr es s ed bythe fa ctthathe has had s uch a ba d l i fe. H e’ s had a bad l i fe i n par t beca us e he w as a drug deal er . ” D es pi t e i t s l ack of sy m pathyfor So t o-So t o, t he co urtsent enced S oto- S oto t o 5 7 m on ths’ i m pr i s onm ent , t he bot t om of the appl i cabl e r ange. Sot o- Sot o now appea l s , ar gui ng thatt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ent ence w as u n re a so n a b le. H e a rg u e s th a t th e sta tem e n t b yth e d istric t co u rt th a t S o to -S o to has “had a bad l i fe i n par tbeca us e he w as a drug deal er ” meantt hatt he di s tr i ct cour tfai l ed t o under s t and hi s ar gum entas t o w hya l ow ers ent ence s houl d be i m pos ed. Sent ence s i ns i de the advi s orygui del i nes r ange a r e ent i t l ed t o 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) . “Thi s i s a defer ent i al s t andar d thatei thert he defendantort he governm entm ayr ebutbydemonstr at i ng thatt he s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e w hen vi ew ed aga i ns tt he otherfac t or s del i neat ed i n § 3553( a) . ” I d. T h e c laim o n a p p e a l is n o th in g sh o rt o f a b su rd . T h e d istric t co u rt d ire c tly a d d re ss e d th e m iti g a tin g fa c to rs r a ise d b yS o to -S o to , b u t sim p lyfo u n d th a t h is sto ryw a s n o t p a rticu lar lyo u t o f th e o rd in a ry . It th e n w e n t o n to n o te th a t “p a rt” o f th e re a s o n fo r t h e s e t- b a c k s S o to -S o to h a s fa c e d w a s h is d e c is io n to s e ll d ru g s . T hi s i s undeni abl yt rue, as he w as convi ct ed forpos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o del i ver coca i ne and a dm i t t ed t o a pas thi s t oryof drug- r el at ed ac t i vi t i es . T he di s tr i ct cour tdi d notexpl i ci t l ym ent i on t he § 3553( a) fac t or s , buti ti s cl earfr om t he5

r ecor d t hat , befor e i m pos i ng t he s ent ence , the di s tr i ctcour tcons i der ed the s ubs t ance of r el evantfac t or s , i ncl udi ng t he hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs of the d e fe n d a n t a n d th e n e e d fo r t h e s e n te n c e to re fle c t th e s e ri o u s n e s s o f th e o ffe n s e . A s w e have s t at ed befor e, “w e w i l l notdemand t hatthe di s tr i ctcour tr eci t e any m agi c w or ds t o s how us t hati tful fi l l ed i t s r es pons i bi l i tyt o be mi ndful of the fac t or s t hatC ongr es s has i ns t ruct ed i tt o cons i der . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M ar es , 441 F .3 d 1 1 5 2 , 1 1 6 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). Sent ence s w i t hi n t he advi s or ygui del i ne r ange a r e pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e and Sot o- Sot o has notpr es ent ed anyar gum ents uffi ci entt o over come t hat p re s u m p tio n . Fort he r eas ons s t at ed above , w e AF F I RM t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ent enci ng o rd e r. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge