[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 32 Pedro Fernandez

- de Campa appeals his sentence of 30 months of imprisonment following his plea of guilty t o reentering the United States illegally. 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Fernandez

- de Campa argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable bec ause 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 ’ argume nts 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 memorand um ” 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

. T he district court considered Fernandez

- de Campa ’s argu ments that a lenient sentenc e 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

o ther aliens from entering the country illegal ly

. The district court also “reviewed the presentence report” and considered the prosecutor’s argument t hat sentencing

Case: 19-12673 Date Filed: 04/16/2020 Page: 2 of 33 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 f or conspi ring to distribute marijuana, driving while intoxicated, and petty theft. The district court s e lected a sentence of 30 months of imprisonment based on “ Title 18, United States Code § § 3551 and 3553 . . . .” The district court stated its reasons fo r 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 foun d guilty of the charged crime” does not have to be charged in an indictment or prove d 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