The Honor able Thoma s B. Russell, United States District J udg e for the Western District * of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL LTEXT PUB L I CATI ON

File Na me: 08a0522n.06 Filed: August 26, 2008 No. 06-6326 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v.
ROBERTO MARTI

NEZ -B AHENA , De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt.

_____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE MI DDL E DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

BEFORE: COLE, CLAY, Circ uit Jud ges; RU SSE LL, District Judge * RUSSEL L, District Judge. Defendant- Ap pe lla nt R ob e rt o M art ine z-B ahe na a pp e a ls h is sentenc e following his guilty plea to illeg al ree ntry into the United States in the Middle District of Tenne ssee a sserting that the district court: 1) imposed a s u bstantively unrea sonable sente nce; a nd 2) er red by tolling the per iod of supervised r elea se. BACK GR OUND Roberto Martinez-B ahena , a native of Mexi co, ente red the United States illega lly in 1985 at the ag e of sixteen. I n 1987, at the ag e of e ighte en, Mar tinez-Bahe na wa s convicted f or the fe lony

sa le , tr ans po rt a tio n, and po sse ssi on of c oc a ine in O ra

ng e County , Ca lif

or nia , a nd re c e ive d th ir

ty -s ixmon ths pr ob a tio n an d nine ty da y s cus tod y a s a con dit ion of pr ob a tio n. F ive mon ths a ft e r t his a rr e st, in 1 98 8, Mar

tin e z-B ahe na

wa s c on vic te d f

or the fe lony

sa le and tr ans po rt a tio n o f c oc a ine . A s a result of this second conviction, the S tate of Califor nia re voked Mar

tinez-Bahe na’s pr obation and sentenc ed him to two y ear s imprisonment. Fr esh out of jail, M artinez-B ahena continued to run a foul of the law , albeit in relatively minor way s. I n 1989, at the ag e of twe nty , Martinez-B ahe n a s p en t t h i rt y day s in jail for a misdemea nor b a t t e r y o f f e n s e an d p r o b a t i o nv i o l a t i o n . In 1 9 9 1 , a tt h e a g e o f t w e n t y- t w o , h e s p e n tan o t h e r t e n d a ys in jail for pre senting false ide ntification to a police of fice r. Then, Mar

tinez-Bahe na appe are d to tur n a corne r, both professionally and per sonally . Over the next fifteen y ear s, and while re siding in the United States, Ma rtinez-Ba hena ha d no ar re sts or convictions. I n 1991, he beg an wor king at Bridg ford F oods Corporation as a baker y supervisor a

nd continued ther e on a f

ull-time basis until late 2002. In 2003, he lef t Bridg ford F oods and beg an working tw o jo b s : o n e p art- ti me a s a te c h n ic ia na t N o rth

Co u n ty T o y o ta , an d

an o th e r f u ll

- ti me as

a mac hine oper ator at L ag una Cookie Company

. During this ti me, Martinez-B ahena also beg an a f amily with Rosalba Atanac io OrdunaQu es ad a. T h e t wo b ega nt h ei r r el at i o n s h i p i nap p ro x i m at el y 1 9 9 0 , an d

m arri edi n2 0 0 1

. T h o u gh they are now sepa

rate d, they

have f o u r ch i ldren a

nd three step-childre n, all of whom ar e United States citiz ens. I n 1998, Martinez-B ahena rec eived a

Certificate of Reha

bilitation from the State of California a s to hi s t wo p ri o r fe lony drug convictions, committed over ten y ear s ear lier. Unde r California P enal Code § 4852.13, a person who has been relea sed from a st ate pr ison, who has not been inc arc erated since his re lease , and who pr esents satisfa ctory evidenc e of a thre e-y ear

residenc e in C a lif or nia , ma y a pp ly fo r s uc h a

c e rt if ic ate, whi ch emb od ie s a fi nd ingthat th e pe rs on isreha

bilitated. Id. § 4852.13(a) . The State then be g ins a forma l investigation to determine whe ther

a full pardon from the Gover nor would be a

ppropriate

. Id. A t t

h e ti me o f h is d e p o rtati o n , M arti n e zBa hena’ s application for a pardon ha d y et to be adjudica ted by the State. A par don does not officia lly remove the conviction fr om an individual’s criminal re cord. On Marc h 14, 2001, Martinez-B ahena filed an A pplication to Reg ister Permane nt Residence

or Adj us t S ta tus , in

a n atte mpt to g a in l awf

ul s ta tus a s a

pe rm ane nt r e sid e nt o f t

he Un ite d St a te s. I mmigration officials denie d that application base d on his two prior felony convictions in California. I n April 2004, Martinez-B ahena was charg ed with being an illeg al alien pr esent in the United States afte r havingbeen c onvicted of a crime c lassified as an ag g ravated fe lony . One month later , an imm ig ratio n ju dg e iss ue d an ord e r d e po rt ingMa rt ine z-B ahe na

to M e xico a ft e r d e nyinghis application for

voluntary

depar ture. Mart ine z-B ahe na

re tur ne d to the Un ite d St a te s il le g a lly a ft e r s ix mon ths in M e xico , in iti a lly residing in California, then moving to Tennesse e in ea rly 2005. He immediately

beg an wor

king two jobs – one as a f

ull-time forklift operator for A .P.L . L og istic s , an d an o t her a s a par t-time banquet

se rv e r f or She raton Ho te ls a nd Re so rt s. Th e e ve nts tha

t g ive ri se to the ins tant c a se be g an o n F e br ua ry 1, 20 06 , w he n a

n o ff ic e r w ith the Me tr op oli tan N a sh vil le Pol ice De pa rtme nt s top pe d M art ine z-B ahe na fo r a ro uti ne tr a ff

ic violation. Upon conducting a sear ch via his c ruiser’ s on-boar d computer, the office r discover ed that Mart ine z-B ahe na

wa s a pr e vio us ly

de po rt e d a g g ra

vate d f e lon and pla c e d h im und e r a

rr e st. A w e e k late r , o n F e b r

u ar y 8 , 2 0 0 6 , a f

e d e r a l g r an d ju

r y s itti n g in th e M id d le D is tr ict of Tenne ssee indicted Ma

rtinez-Bah en a o n one count of illega l ree ntry

into the United States after having been r emoved or

deporte d subsequent to the commission of an a g g ravated felony , in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) a nd (b )( 2 ). On J uly

10, 2006, Martinez-B ahena pleade d g uilty

to theind ic tme nt w ith ou t a ple a a g re e me nt, wh ic h c arr ie d w ithit a ma ximumstatut or

y pe na lty of tw e nty y ear s impri s o n m ent, with a fine of up to $250,000, a mandatory $100 specia l assessment fe e, and

a te rm of su pe rv ise d r e le a se of

no t mo re tha

n thre e y e ars . The Pre- sentenc e Investigat i on Report (“ PSR ”) de termined that, a ccor ding to the U nited State s S ent enc ingGu ild lin e s, Mart ine z-B ahe na ’s ba se of fe ns e le ve l is e ig ht. U. S. S EN TENC I NG G U I D ELI N ES M ANUAL (“U .S.S.G.”) § 2L 1.2(b)( 1)(A) (i). The PSRincre ased the offe nse leve l by six teen leve ls beca

use Mar tinez-Bahe na pre v i o u s l y

was de ported or unla

wfully rema ined in the Uni t ed S t at es after a

conviction for a

felony that was a

drug traff

icking offe nse for

which the sentenc e im posed ex cee ded thi rtee n months. Id. Under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), the PSRrec ommended a thre e-point dec rea se for

acc eptanc e of responsibility

. Ba sed on a tot al offense level of twenty -one

an d a c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y c a t e g o r y o f o n e , t h e P S R c a l c u l a t e d t h e G u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c i n g r an g e a s t h i rt yse ve n to fo rt

y -s ix mon ths

. Prior to sentencing , Martinez-B ahena filed a Sente ncing Posit ion, a Sent encing Memorandum, a

nd a Motion for a Substantial Downward D epar ture, re questing a sente nce be low the Guidelines ra

ng e under

U.S.S.G. § 5K2. 0 b as ed o n his cultural assimilation, his l ong work history in the United States, his family ties, the non-violent nature of the unde rlying felonies, the leng th of time betwee n the convictions and his ar rest, his attempts to ex p ung e his criminal re cord

and a tta in l e g a l r e sid e nt s ta tus , a nd the dis pa ri ty in se nt enci ng re su lti ngfr om t he la c k o f a

“ fa sttrac k” prog ram i n t h e Middle District of Te nnessee , which per mits defendants indicted f or illeg al

re -e ntr y to r e c e ive a

fo ur -l e ve l r e du c tio n u

po n mo tio n b y

the Go ve rnme nt. T h e G o v e r

n me n t r e s p o n d e d th a t, a s ana li e nw h o h a d b e e np r e v io u s ly

d e p o rte d , M arti n e zBa hena should be sentenc ed within the Guidelines ra ng e, that his case did not present fa cts outside the he art land

of oth e r i lle g a l r e e ntr

y c a se s, and that the a

bs e nc e of a fa st- tr a c k p ro g ra

m di d n ot c re a teun wa

rr ante d s e nte nc ingdis pa

ri tie s. At the sentenc ing h ear ing, the district court noted that he had re ad and r eviewe d all the submissi ons, includ i n g t h e seve ral letter s submitt ed in support, the var ious papers, a nd the sentenc ing memorandum. After hear ing te stimony , revie wing additional evidenc e, and he aringthe arguments of the par

ties, the co u rt denied the motion for a downwar d depar

ture a nd sentenc ed Martinez-B ahena

to thirty -seve n months im prisonment, the bottom of the Guidelines ra ng e. The court a lso sentence d Martinez-B ahena to two y ear s of supervise d rele ase, to be suspended or tolled wh ile Mart ine z-B ahe na

re ma ine d o uts ide the jur isd ic tio n o f t he Un ite d St a te s. I n imposing the sente nce, the court outl ined t he 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fac tors, acknow ledg ed the advisory

nature of the Guide lines, and explained the re ason for the sentenc e: I n the opinion of the Court, a g uideline sentenc e is appropr iate. I am deny ing the re quest for a

nong uideline sentenc e either throug h 3553 or a dow nwar d depar ture. I n my vie w, a g uid e lin e se nte nc e is n e c e ssa ry mos t sp e c if

ic a lly fo r d e te rr e nc e . L a st time Mr. Martinez was deporte d, he was back within a few months. Acc ording to the defe ndant’s brie f, about two months. He testified about six months. He needs to be deter red. Others need to be dete rre d. And there is a lack of appre ciation for the fac t that hi s p re se nc e in t

his c ountr y is i lle g a l. M an y o f t h e ar g uments that are prese nted ar e important to consider in the po lic y de c isi on s a

bo ut w ho sh ou ld b e c onsi dere d il le g a l or no t il le g a l, b ut h is pr e se nc e in t

he Un ite d St a te s is ill e g a l. T h e c o u rtt h e nc o n c l u d e d t h a t“ [ t ] h e r e a r e s a d

f a m i l y c o n s e qu e n c e s f

r o m t h i s c a s e , r e g r e t t a

b l y. Th a t’ s o rd ina

ry rathe r t ha n ex tr aord inar

y . M os t c a se s h a ve pa inf ul c on se qu e nc e s f

or fa mil y members. I

wish it were othe rwise, but it is not.” At the close of the hea ring , Martinez-B ahena ’s counsel stated: “ Ithink for appe llate purposes I am re quired to say

that we objec t to the se ntence .” Martinez-B ahena

timely appea led his sentence

.

AN AL YSI S I. STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EWThe district cour t’s task at sentenc ing is to “impose a sentenc e sufficie nt, but not gr eate r than

nece ssary , to c omply with the purposes” of the fac tors set forth in § 3553(a)

. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

“ Th e c ourt

ne e d n ot r e c ite the [] fa c tors [ li st e d in 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a )] b ut m us t art ic ulate its

rea soning in de ciding to impo s e a sente nce in or der to a llow for re asonable appellate revie w.” United States v. Pe nson , 5 2 6 F. 3 d 3 3 1 , 3 3 6 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( q u o t i n g United States v. Kirby , 418 F.3d 621, 626 (6th Cir. 2005)). Under Rita v. United States , --- U.S.

--- , 127 S. Ct . 2456 (2007), a nd Gall v. United States ,

--- U.S. --- , 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007), we revie w a district cour t’s sentenc ing de termination for

rea sonablene ss under a

defe rential a

buse-of -discre tion standard. This reviewentails a two-ste p proce ss. The appe llate court “m u s t fi rst ensure that t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt c o m m i t t e d n o s i g n i f i c an t p r o c e d

u r a l e r r o r , s u c h a s f

a i l i n g to calc ulate (or

improperly

calc ulating) the Guidelines rang e, treating the G uidelines as mandato ry , failing to consider the § 3553( a) f actor s, selectinga sente nce ba sed on clea rly err oneous fa cts, or fa iling to ade quately explain the chosen sentenc e.” Penson , 5 2 6 F. 3 d at 3 3 6 (q u o t i n g Ga ll , 1 28 S. Ct . at 59 7) ; s ee also United States v . Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 581 (6th Cir. 2007) (“ [I ]n reviewing sentenc es for pr ocedur al re asonable ness we must ensur e that the district court: (1) proper ly calc ulated the a

pplicable a dvisory

Guidelines ra

n ge; (2) considere d the other § 3553( a) f actor s as well as the parties’ arguments for a sent en ce outside the Guidelines ra

ng e; and (3) adequately articulated i ts reasoningfor imposing the par ticular sente nce chosen, inc luding a

ny reje ction of the pa

rties’ a rg uments for a

n outside-Guidelines sente nce a nd any de c isi on to d e viate fr om t

he a dv iso ry

Gu ide lin e s r ang e .” ); United States v. Lalonde , 509 F.3d 750, 769-70 (6th Cir. 2007). After we have found the di strict court’s sentencing to be proc edura lly sound, we must “then consider the substantive rea sonablene ss of the sentenc e imposed under an abuse -of- discre t i on

s ta n d ard.” Gall , 1 28 S. Ct . at 59 7. We h a ve he ld t hat “ [a] s e nte nc e may

be su bs tanti ve lyunrea sonable whe re the district court selec ts the sentence arbitra rily , bases the se nt en ce on impermissible factor s, fails to consider pe rtinent § 3553(a) fac tors or g ives an unre asonable amount of weight to any

pertinent fa ctor.” United States v. Jone s , 489 F.3d 243, 252 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (interna l qu o tati o n s a n d a lt e r a ti o n s o mi tt e d )

. T h is c o n s id e r a ti o n s h o u ld b e b a s e d o n “ th e tota lity of the circ umstances.” Ga ll , 128 S. Ct . at 597. “On a buse-of -discre tion review, [we give] due defere nce to the [ d]i strict [c] ourt’s re asoned and re asonable decision that t he § 3553(a) fac tors, on the whole, justified the se ntence .” Id. at 602. Ga ll instructs us that a di strict court ha s not nece ssarily committed reve rsible er

ror by attachingg reat weig ht to any single fac tor, id. at 600, nor if we “mig ht r easona bly have conclude d that a diffe rent sentenc e was a

ppropriate ,” id. at 597. The “centra l lesson” to be learne d from the Supre me Court’s

rec ent sentenc ing decisions is “that district courts have considera ble discre tion in thi s are a and thus deser ve the be nefit of the doubt whe n we r eview thei r s en t ences and the r easons g iven for the m.” Un i t ed S t a t es v. Vonner , 51 6 F .3 d 38 2, 39 2 (6 th Cir

. 20 08 ) (e n ba nc ). Ac c or din g ly , we “ c re dit a within-Guidelines s entenc e with a rebuttable pre sumption of substantive reasona bleness.” United S ta te s v . W ilms , 4 95 F .3 d 2 77 , 2 80 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) . T his “ pr e su mpt ion ,” ho we ve r, is n ot a

“ pr e su mp t i o n ” a s g e n e r a l l y d e f i n e d ; “ r a t h e r

t h anh a v i n g i n d e p e n d e n tl e g a l e f f e c t , [i t ] s i mp ly

re c og nize s th e re a l- wo rl d c ir c ums tanc e that w he n th e jud g e ’s dis c re tio na ry de c isi on a c c or ds wi th the Com mis sio n’ s v ie w o f t he a pp ro pr ia te a

pp lic a tio n o f § 35 53 (a ) i n t he mi ne run of c a se s, it i s probable that the sentenc e is rea sonable.” Ri ta , 127 S. Ct . at 2643. II. AN AL YSI S On appe al, Martinez-B ahena challeng es only the substantive rea sonablene ss of his sentence

. He c ontends that the ag e of his prior f elony conviction, lack of

deportation p ro ce ed i n gs for y ear s there afte r, his eff

orts to obtain cer

tificates of

reha bilitation and pardons for those offe nses, his y ear swithout any other off enses, a nd hi s o t h er ef

forts at rehabilitation, counsel ag ainst applying the six teen point incr ease for his pr ior felony drug conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.2(b)( 1)(A) (i). The Go ve rnme nt, in t

ur n, argue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt fu lly c on sid e re d b oth

the Gu ide lin e s ra

ng e a nd a ll of the § 3553(a) fac tors befor e imposing the sentenc e, and that Martinez-B ahena ’s p ri o r c ri m i n al

c on du c t de mon str a te s th a t he is a “ pr ov e n, da

ng e ro us felon ” who “has a pr op e ns ity

to c omm it crime.” Th e c e ntr a l qu e sti on in t his c a se is w he the r t

he dis tr ic t c ourt , b y

e mphasi z in g t he ne e d to deter illega l aliens from re -ente ring the United States, either failed to consider pe rtinent § 3553(a) fa c to r s o r g a v e an u n r e a s o n a b le a mo u n t o f w e ig h t to an y p e rti n e n t f a c to r . A f te r revie wing the § 3553(a) fac tors, the cour t se ntence d Martinez-B ahena to thirty -seve n months im prisonment, the bottom of the Guidelines ra ng e, and two y ear s s u p er vised rele ase to be tolled while he re mained outside the j urisdiction of t he United States. As noted above, Martinez-B ahena rec eived a six teenle ve l e nh anc e me nt f

or tw o p ri or fe lony dr

ug c on vic tio ns he re c e ive d ove r f if te e n- y e ars pr ior

to h is i n i t i a l d e p o rt a t i o n , w h i c h r a i s e d h i s G u i d e l i n e s r an g e f

r o m z e r o t o s i x m o n t h s t o t h i rt y- s e v e nt o f o rt ysix months, a near ly

eig ht-fold incre ase. A. Subst ant ive Re as ona ble ne ss Under U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.2(b)( 1)(A) (i), a pr eviously deporte d ali en re ceive s a six teen- level incre ase in the rec ommended Guidelines rang e for illega l re-e ntry

if that individual has “a c onviction fo r a fe lony that is (i ) a dr

ug tr a ff ic kin g of fe ns e fo r w hic h th e se nte nc e imp os e d e xce e de d 1 3 mo nth s; (ii) a c rime of violenc e; (iii) a f irea rms offe nse; (iv) a

child pornog raphy

off ense; (v) a national

se c ur ity or te rr or ism of fe ns e ; ( vi) a human tr a ff

ic kin g of fe ns e ; or (v ii) an a lie n s mug g lin g of fe ns e

. . .” As re le va

nt he re , a “dr

ug tr a ff ic kin g of fe ns e ” is de fi ne d in the Ap pli c a tio n Not e s as “a n o ff e ns e under f eder al, state, or loc al law that pr ohibits t h e m an u fac ture, import, export, distribut ion, ordispensi n g o f a co ntrolled substance (or a counter feit substance ) or the posse ssion of a controlled substance ( or a c ounterfe it substance) w ith intent to m anufa cture , import, e x port, distribute, or dispense.” Id. § 2L 1.2 cmt. n.1. The re cord r evea ls no indication that the district court based M artinez-B ahena ’s sentenc e on impermissible factor s. The rec ord re adily demonstrates that the court c onsidered both the r eleva nt § 3553(a) fac tors and the de fenda nt’s arguments for lenie ncy . Additionally , we find that the cour t did not give undue weig ht to the need for de terre nce, a specific ally

enumer ated c onsideration under § 3553(a) . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) (B ). We also find that the abse nce of a fa st-trac k prog ram in the Middle D i s t rict of Te nnessee does not cre ate a

n unwar rante d sentenc ing dispa

rity . Section 5K3.1 of the SentencingGuidelines pr ov ide s f

or a do wnwa

rd de pa rt ur e of up to f

our l e ve ls u

po n mo tio n o f t

he Go ve rnme nt i n d istri c ts wher e an e ar l y dispositi on, or fa st-trac k, prog ram ha s been a uthorized by

the Attorney

Gene ral of the United States and the United S tates Att orney for the district in which the c ourt reside s. U.S.S.G. § 5 K3 .1. We have he ld t

hat th e a bs e nc e of fa st- tr a c k p ro g ra

ms i n c e rt a in d istri c ts d oe s n ot c re a te

unwar rante d sentenc ing dispa

rities. United States v. He rnandez-Fierros , 453 F.3d 309, 314 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (“ [F]ast-track guidelines reduc tions were spe cifica lly authorized by

statute due to the unique and pre ssing pr oblems relate d to immi g ration in ce rtain di stricts. As a result, such a disparity does not run counter

to § 3553(a)’ s instruction to avoid unnece ssary sentenc ing dispa

rities”). B. Tol ling th e P e r iod of Supe r vis e d Re le as e The district cour

t tolled the period of supe rvised re lease while Martinez-B ahena rema ined

ou tsi de the jur isd ic tio n o f the Un ite d Stat e s fol low ing his imp ri so nme nt. F oll ow ingse nte nc ingin this case, a

nd as the Gove rnment conc edes, the Six th Circuit issued a n en banc decision in United States v. Ossa-Gallegos , 49 1 F.3d 537 ( 6th Cir. 2007), which held that the pe riod of super visedrele ase c annot be tolled duringa def endant’ s absenc e fr om the United States. Id. at 538-39. Conclusion Having studied the record on appea l and the br iefs of the parties, we are not persuade d that the se ntenc e im pose d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

is unr e a so na

ble in l ig ht o f t

he fa c tor s se t f

or th i n § 3 55 3( a ); ho we ve r, we fi nd that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in tol lin g the pe ri od of su pe rv ise d r e le a se wh ile Mart ine z-B ahe na

re ma ine d o uts ide the juri sd ict io n o f t he Un ite d St a te s f

oll ow inghis imprisonment. Accor dingly we VA CA TE the judg ment of the district cour t and REMAND for

rese nt en cing with instructions that the remand be limit ed to setting forth lawf ul conditions of supervised r elea se.