United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1696

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota. 

Gustavo Villa-Maldonado, also *

known as Gustavo Angel Garza, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 12, 2011

Filed: December 30, 2011

___________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gustavo Villa-Maldonado, a Mexican citizen, pled guilty to reentering the

United Statesillegally after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),(b)(2). The

district court sentenced him to 37 months, the bottom of his guideline range. Villa1

Maldonado appeals, arguing that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We

affirm.

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.
Villa-Maldonado pled guilty to the current offense after he was apprehended

in Minnesota in June 2010. In a written plea agreement he stipulated that he had been

removed from the United States after a felony conviction for sale of a controlled

substance and had then reentered without permission. 

At sentencing Villa-Maldonado requested a below guideline sentence. He

presented a video featuring family and friends, a letter from his wife, photographs of

himself with his family, a sentencing memorandum, and oral arguments. VillaMaldonado argued that mitigating factors in his case warranted a downward variance. 

He explained how following his deportation after serving a prior illegal reentry

sentence, he moved his family to Mexico despite safety concerns stemming fromdrug

cartel violence in his region of Mexico. When his wife became pregnant and

complications developed, he sent his family back to Minnesota but he opted not to

break the law and stayed in Mexico. He asserted that he only committed the instant

offense after learning that his wife was unable to support the family. He contended

that since his son is now old enough to work, his motivation for returning illegally

again has been removed.

The district court acknowledged that it was a "very difficult case" but rejected

the appellant's argumentsfor a variance and imposed a term of 37 months, the bottom

of his guideline range of 37 – 46 months. The court stated that it had "carefully

reviewed" the presentence investigation report and the materials submitted by VillaMaldonado, considered all ofthe 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and determined that the

sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the statute's

purposes. 

Villa-Maldonado appeals, arguing that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable and that he should have been granted a downward variance. He

contends that the district court's assessment of what was adequate deterrence was an

abuse of discretion, since he had been "significantly deterred" by his prior illegal

-2-
reentry sentence and only came back "when he was faced with the most difficult of

personal circumstances."

Since Villa-Maldonado does not argue that the district court committed a

procedural error, we "move directly to review the substantive reasonableness of his

sentence." United States v. O'Connor, 567 F.3d 395, 397 (8th Cir. 2009). This

review is under a "deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A district court abuses its discretion "when it fails to

consider a relevant and significant factor, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or

improper factor, or considers the appropriate factors but commits clear error of

judgment in weighing those factors." United States v. Miner, 544 F.3d 930, 932 (8th

Cir. 2008). Where the district court's sentence is within the guideline range, it is

accorded a "presumption of substantive reasonableness" on appeal. United States v.

Robinson, 516 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2008).

The record shows that the district court considered all of the § 3553(a) factors,

including the appellant's personal history and characteristics, in imposing a sentence

at the bottom of the guideline range. It noted that it was a "very difficult case,"

expressed "great sympathy" for Villa-Maldonado and his family, and stated that the

appellant's motivesfor reentering the United States were "honorable." The court also

stated that Villa-Maldonado had been "a good husband and father" and had "worked

hard at honest jobs" since his most recent illegal reentry. The court recognized,

however, that "there are millions of people who would like to live in the United

States" and most of them, "unlike Mr. Villa, have never sold illegal drugs in this

country or otherwise broken the laws of this country." Noting the appellant's prior

30 month sentence for illegal reentry, the court concluded that only a higher sentence

would be sufficient to serve the purposes of specific and general deterrence, to

promote respect for the immigration laws, and to avoid unwarranted sentencing

disparities.

-3-
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing

Villa-Maldonado to 37 months, the bottom of his guideline range. The district court

has "wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some factors

greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence." United States v.

Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009). The court carefully considered the

appellant's arguments for a variance but concluded that a 37 month sentence was

sufficient but not greater than necessary to serve the purposes of § 3553(a). The

appellant's sentence is not substantively unreasonable.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-4-