[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-12673

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:19-cr-00038-MMH-JBT-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO FERNANDEZ-DE CAMPA, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 16, 2020)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 19-12673 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 1 of 3
2

Pedro Fernandez-de Campa appeals his sentence of 30 months of 

imprisonment following his plea of guilty to reentering the United States illegally. 

8 U.S.C. § 1326. Fernandez-de Campa argues that his sentence is procedurally 

unreasonable because the district court failed to state the reasons for its chosen 

sentence. He also argues that his sentence is unconstitutional because his maximum 

statutory sentence was increased based on the fact of a prior conviction that was

not alleged in his indictment or admitted by him. We affirm.

Fernandez-de Campa’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. The explanation 

provided by district court, “though brief, was legally sufficient” to establish that it 

“considered the parties’ arguments and [had] a reasoned basis” for its chosen 

sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). The district court 

“reviewed . . . [Fernandez-de Campa’s] sentencing memorandum” and “heard from 

counsel and from Mr. Fernandez-de Campa” concerning his request for a

downward variance from his recommended guideline range of 30 to 37 months of 

imprisonment. The district court considered Fernandez-de Campa’s arguments that 

a lenient sentence would account for his difficult childhood, his ongoing support of 

his wife and three stepdaughters living in the United States, how deportation was a

“harsh[] consequence” for him due to his age, and how his deportation would deter 

other aliens from entering the country illegally. The district court also “reviewed 

the presentence report” and considered the prosecutor’s argument that sentencing 

Case: 19-12673 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 2 of 3
3

Fernandez-de Campa to 37 months of imprisonment was required to punish him 

for reentering the United States illegally a third time after deportation, to deter him 

from committing future similar crimes, and to account for his criminal history 

score of IV, which included his convictions for conspiring to distribute marijuana, 

driving while intoxicated, and petty theft. The district court selected a sentence of 

30 months of imprisonment based on “Title 18, United States Code §§ 3551 and 

3553 . . . .” The district court stated its reasons for sentencing Fernandez-de Campa 

to a term at the low end of his guideline range.

Fernandez-de Campa concedes that his challenge to the constitutionality of 

his sentence is foreclosed by precedent. In Almendarez–Torres v. United States, 

523 U.S. 224 (1998), the Supreme Court held that a prior conviction “relevant only 

to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime” does not have 

to be charged in an indictment or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, even 

if it increases the defendant’s maximum statutory sentence. Id. at 228–47. 

Almendarez-Torres remains the law until overruled by the Supreme Court, which it 

declined to do in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). Id. at 111 n.1.

We AFFIRM Fernandez-de Campa’s sentence.

Case: 19-12673 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 3 of 3