2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-2-2008 

# U SA v . B e z am a-I sle r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2964

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Bezam a -I sle r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 421. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/421NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 2964 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M AU RI CI O R I CA RD O B EZAM A- I SLER a / k / a M AUR I CI O I S L E R, a / k / a J UAN P E NA M au ri co R icard o B ez am a-Isler, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 07- cr - 00164) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. J os eph E. I r enas

Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on J une 26, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober2, 2008)

O P I N I O N2

R O T H , C i rcui t Judge: M aur i ci o B eza m a- I s l erappea l s fr om a j udgm entof s ent ence aft erbei ng convi ct ed f o r i lle g a lly re e n te ri n g th e U n ite d S ta te s a f te r d e p o rt a tio n , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a ), ( b )( 2 ). F o r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d b e lo w , w e w ill a f f ir m . B e c a u se w e w rite p rim a rilyf o r th e p a rties w h o a re f a m ili a r w ith th is c a se , w e o n ly bri efl yreci t e t he fa ct s. O n M ar ch 1, 2007, B eza m a- I s l erpl eade d gui l tyt o a one c ounti nform at i on ch arg ing h im w ith il lega l r e-e n tryaf ter de p o rt ati o n , in v iolati o n o f 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 (a), (b )(2 ). P rio r to se n ten c in g , the U .S . P ro b a tio n O f f ice su b m itt e d its p re se n ten c e re p o rt, s t at i ng thatB eza m a- I s l er ’ s conductw arr ant ed a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 21 and hi s ext ens i ve cri m i nal r ecord p l aced h i m i n a cri m i nal hi st orycat ego ryof V I. In l i gh tof these fact ors, the Pr obat i on O ffi ce c oncl uded thatthe appr opr i at e advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange f or i m pr i s onm entw as 77 t o 96 m onths . B eza m a- I s l erdi d notdi s put e thatthi s w as the appr opr i at e G ui del i nes r ange, and he i ndi cat ed thathe w as nots eeki ng a form al d o w n w ard d ep arture u n d er the G u idelines . Instea d B ez am a-Isler ask ed the D istri ct C o u rt to e x e rc ise its d isc re tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) a n d im p o se a se n ten c e “ m o d e stly b e lo w th e A d v iso ryG u id e lin e s R a n g e ” b a se d u p o n a n u m b e r o f f a c to rs, in c lu d in g h is
r ehabi l i t at i ve pr ogr es s aft erhi s 2003 s t at e convi ct i on. O n J une 22, 2007, the D i s tr i ct C our ts ent ence d defe ndantt o a 77- m onth t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , a thr ee- y eart erm of
s u p e rv is e d re le a s e , a n d s p e c ia l c o n d itio n s . B e z a m a -I s le r a p p e a le d .3

W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a )( 1 ). W e re v ie w th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d f o r r e a s o n a b le n e s s , U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 3 2 4 , 3 2 6 -2 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), a s k in g “ w h e th e r t h e tr ia l c o u rt a b u s e d its d is c re tio n ,” R i ta v. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 5 (20 0 7 ). O n appea l , B eza m a- I s l erar gues thathi s s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yi m pr oper b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt f a iled to a d e q u a telyc o n sid e r h is a rg u m e n t co n c e rn in g h is
r ehabi l i t at i ve pr ogr es s . W e di s agr ee be caus e the r ecor d demonstr at es thatthe D i s tr i ct C our tcar eful l ycons i der ed and a ddr es s ed B eza m a- I s l er ’ s ar gum entthathe s houl d r ece i ve a sent ence b el ow the G uidel i nes range b ased up on his recentrehabi l i t at i ve p rogres s, w hi l e t aki ng i nt o cons i der at i on the fa ct or s l i s t ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) i n i m pos i ng t he
sen tenc e a t i ssu e. A fter the D istri ct C o u rtex p resse d it s sinc ere b eli ef in B ez am a-Isler’s rehabi l i t at i ve p rogres s, the co urtthen balanced such rehabi l i t at i ve p rogres s agai nst B ez am a-Isler’s cri m inal h ist o ryto jud g e the m erit s o f h is va ri an ce req u est. T h e c o u rt concl uded that , bas ed on the fa ct or s i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , a s ent ence w i thi n the G ui del i nes r ange w as appr opr i at e gi ven B eza m a- I s l er ’ s “extr aor di narycr i m i nal h ist o ry [,]” the “ n ee d to p rotec t th e p u b li c, . . . the n ee d fo r de terrenc e to d eter fu ture conduct , and the nee d t o s etan exa m pl e[. ] ” The cour tt ook car e t o not e that , gi ven B eza m a- I s l er ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory , “i tw oul d be veryt empt i ng t o gi ve a s ent ence atthe upperend of the gui del i ne r ange, ” butthatthe courtw as “goi ng t o gi ve the def endantt he b e n e f it o f th e d o u b t” b e c a u se it “th in k [ s] h e is te lli n g th e tru th ” w ith re g a rd to h is4

re h a b ilita tiv e e f

f o rt s . B as ed on the for egoi ng, w e bel i eve thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tunder s t ood and addr es s ed B eza m a- I s l er ’ s ar gum ent s conce rni ng hi s r ehabi l i t at i ve pr ogr es s , gave m e a n in g f

u l c o n s id e ra tio n to d e f

e n d a n t’ s re q u e s t f

o r a v a ri a n c e u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a) , and s uffi ci ent l yexpl ai ned i t s r eas oni ng fori m pos i ng a s ent ence w i thi n, and
n o ta b ly at th e b o tto m o f , th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e . S e e R ita , 1 2 7 S .C t. a t 2 4 6 9 . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

s e n te n c e .