[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-11196

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:08-cr-00166-SDM-TBM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

INOCENCIO RAMIREZ-VELAZCO, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(September 25, 2013)

Before CARNES, Chief Judge, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-11196 Date Filed: 09/25/2013 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Inocencio Ramirez-Velazco appeals his statutory maximum sentence of two 

years imprisonment, six months above the advisory guidelines range, imposed 

following the revocation of his supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). 

Ramirez-Velazco, a Mexican national, was originally sentenced to 30 months 

imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release, for illegally 

reentering the United States after his deportation for felony convictions. After 

completing his custodial term and being removed to Mexico, Ramirez-Velazco 

violated the conditions of his supervised release by, once again, illegally reentering 

the United States and obtaining two additional criminal convictions — a federal 

conviction for being found in the country after deportation and a state conviction 

for possessing a forged citizenship document. He contends that the sentence 

imposed following the revocation of his supervised release was procedurally 

unreasonable because the district court employed a rigid mathematical approach 

that assumed that any term less than his original sentence for illegal reentry would 

be insufficient to satisfy the purposes of sentencing. He asserts that the district 

court’s formulaic approach bypassed consideration of the advisory guidelines

range reflected in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines and ran afoul of the 

federal policy of individualized sentencing. 

A district court, upon finding that the defendant has violated a condition of 

his supervised release, may revoke that supervised release and impose a term of 

Case: 13-11196 Date Filed: 09/25/2013 Page: 2 of 5 
3

imprisonment after considering the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); see United States v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d 

1248, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). In reviewing the procedural reasonableness of a 

sentence, we must ensure that the district court committed no significant 

procedural error, such as failing to accurately calculate the applicable guidelines 

range, treating the sentencing guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 

3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to 

adequately explain the chosen sentence, including any deviation from the advisory 

guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597 

(2007). The § 3553(a) factors include the nature and circumstances of the offense, 

the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need to afford adequate 

deterrence to criminal conduct and protect the public from future crimes of the 

defendant, and the applicable guidelines range. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

At the Ramirez-Velazco’s revocation hearing, the government requested an 

upward variance from the guidelines range of 12 to 18 months imprisonment based 

on his long history of deportations followed by illegal entries into the United States

and the need to adequately deter him from committing similar offenses in the 

future. Ramirez-Velazco bristled at the notion that sentencing decisions should

primarily be driven by considerations of deterrence, remarking that the entire 

process was simply “a numbers game where we just try and move around months 

Case: 13-11196 Date Filed: 09/25/2013 Page: 3 of 5 
4

to see . . . what works and what doesn’t.” The district court, responding to that 

particular argument, stated that “it’s probably not an entirely irrational conclusion 

that if the purposes of Section 3553 were not accomplished by a sentence of X 

months, it is unlikely that the same purposes would be better served by a sentence 

of X months minus some positive integer Y months.” The court then imposed a 

statutory maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, explaining that it had 

considered the § 3553(a) factors, including the advisory guidelines range, and 

concluded that a lesser sentence would not be sufficient to accomplish the goals of 

sentencing given Ramirez-Velazco’s “lack of recognition of his responsibilities”

under the conditions of his supervised release and his persistent history of 

committing similar offenses.

Ramirez-Velazco has not demonstrated that the district court committed any 

significant procedural error in imposing that sentence. Although he suggests that 

the district court effectively abdicated its discretion and ignored the Chapter 7 

policy statements because it used mathematically formulaic language in discussing 

the sentence, the district court used that language only in response to RamirezVelazco’s own argument about the apparent futility of “moving months around.” 

As the record makes clear, the district court did consider the § 3553(a) factors in 

selecting a sentence tailored to the individual circumstances of the case before it, 

including the advisory guidelines range, Ramirez-Velazco’s criminal history and 

Case: 13-11196 Date Filed: 09/25/2013 Page: 4 of 5 
5

characteristics, and the need to promote respect for the law, afford adequate 

deterrence, and protect the public from further criminal offenses. Because there is 

no merit to Ramirez-Velazco’s contention that the district court imposed a 

procedurally unreasonable sentence, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 13-11196 Date Filed: 09/25/2013 Page: 5 of 5