## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 16 96

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. Gus ta vo Vil la -Ma ld on ad o, al so * kn own as Gu st av o An ge l Gar za, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* Defen da nt - App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 12 , 20 11 Fi le d: Decem

be r 30 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _
PER CURI AM.

Gus ta vo Vil la -Ma ld on ad o , a Mex ic an ci ti zen , pl ed gu il ty to reen te rin g th e Uni te d St at es il le ga ll y aft er de po rta ti on in vi ol at io n of 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a),(b )(2 ). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 37 m on th s, th e bo tt om of hi s gu id el in e ran ge

. Vil la

1
Mal do na do ap pe al s, arg ui ng th a t hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e affi rm

.

The Hon or ab le Pat ric k J. Sch il tz , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct

1 of Mi nn es ot a.Vil la -Ma ld on ad o p le d g ui lt y to th e cu rren t o ffen se aft er h e was ap pr eh en de d in Mi nn es ot a in Ju ne 20 10

. In a writ te n pl ea ag reem en t he st ip ul at ed th at he ha d be en

rem ov ed fro m th e Uni te d St at es a fte r a fel on y co nv ic ti on fo r sa le of a co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e an d h ad th en reen te red wit ho ut pe rm is si on

.

At se nt en ci ng Vil la -Ma ld on ad o req ue st ed a be lo w gu id el in e se nt en c e

. He
pr es en te d a vi de o feat ur in g fam il y an d fri en ds
, a le tt er fro m hi s wife
, ph ot og rap hs of hi m se lf wit h hi s fam il y , a se nt en ci ng m em or an du m , an d or al arg um en ts

. Vil la

Mal do na do arg ue d th at m it ig at in g fact or s in hi s cas e warra nt ed a do wnwar d va ria nc e. He ex pl ai ne d ho w fo ll owi ng hi s de po rta ti on aft er s e r v i n g a pr io r il le ga l reen try

se nt en ce, he m ov ed hi s fam il y to Mex ic o de sp it e sa fet y co nc ern s st em m in g fro m dr ug
cart el vi ol en ce in hi s reg io n of Mex ic o. Wh e n h i s wife be cam e pr eg na nt an d

co m pl ic at io ns de ve lo pe d, he se nt hi s fam i l y b ack to Mi nn es ot a bu t he op te d no t to br eak th e la w an d st ay ed in Mex ic o. He as se rte d th at he on ly co m m it te d th e in st an t of fen se aft er learn in g th at hi s wife was un ab le to su pp or t th e fam il y

. He co nt en de d th at si nc e h i s so n is no w ol d en ou gh to wor k, hi s m ot iv at io n fo r ret ur ni ng il le ga ll y ag ai n h as be en rem ov ed

.

The di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d th at it was a "v ery di ffi cu lt cas e" bu t reject ed th e ap pe ll an t's arg um en ts fo r a va ria nc e an d im po se d a te rm of 37 m on th s, th e bo tt om of hi s gu id el in e ran ge of 37 – 46 m on th s. The co ur t st a t e d t h a t i t ha d "ca refu ll y

rev ie wed " th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t an d th e m at eri al s su bm it te d by Vil la

Mal do na do
, co ns id ered al l of th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s, an d de te rm in ed th at th e

se nt en ce was s u f

f i ci en t bu t no t gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry to co m pl y wit h th e st at ut e's
pu rp os es

.

Vil la -Ma ld on ad o ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta n t i v e ly

un reas o n a b l e a n d th at he sh ou ld ha ve be en gr an te d a do wnwar d va ria nc e. He

co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t's as se ss m en t of wha t was ad eq ua te de te rren ce was an ab us e of di sc ret io n, si nc e he ha d be en "s ig ni fic an tl y d e te rred " by hi s pr io r il le ga l

-2

-reen try sen te nc e an d o nl y cam e b ack "wh en he was face d wit h th e m os t di ffi cu lt of
pe rs on al cir cu m st an ces ."

Si nc e Vil la -Ma ld on ad o d o e s n o t arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d a
pr oc ed ur al erro r, we "m ov e di rect ly to rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of hi s

se nt en ce." Uni te d St at es v. O'Co nn or , 56 7 F.3 d 39 5, 39 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Thi s

rev ie w is un de r a "d efer en ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ." Gall v. Uni te d S ta te s, 5 5 2 U

. S. 38
, 41 (2 00 7)

. A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n "wh en it fai l s t o

co ns id er a rel ev an t an d si gn ifi can t fact or , gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an irr el ev an t or im pr op er fact or , or co ns id ers th e ap pr op ria te fac t or s bu t co m m it s cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s." Uni te d St at es v. Mi ne r, 54 4 F.3 d 93 0, 93 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )

. Wh e r e t he di st ric t co ur t's se nt en ce is wit hi n th e gu id el in e ran ge , it is

acco rd ed a "p res um

pt io n of su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss " on ap pe al

. Uni te d St at es v. Ro bi ns on , 51 6 F .3d 71 6, 7 17 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

The reco rd sh ows th at th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered al l of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, in cl ud in g th e ap pe ll an t's pe rs on al hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs , in im po si ng a se nt en ce
at th e bo tt om of t h e gu id el in e ran ge

. It no te d th at it was a "v ery di ffi cu lt cas e,"

ex pr es se d "g reat sym

pa th y " fo r Vil la -Ma ld on ad o an d hi s fam il y , an d st at ed th at th e
ap pe ll an t's m ot iv es fo r reen te rin g th e Uni te d St at es were "h on or ab le ." The co ur t al so
st at ed th at Vil la -Ma ld on ad o ha d be en "a go od hu sb an d an d fat he r" an d ha d "wo rk ed ha rd at ho ne st job s" si nc e hi s m os t rece nt il le ga l reen try. Th e co ur t reco gn iz ed
, ho wev er, th at "t he re are m il li on s o f p e o pl e who wou ld li ke to li ve in th e Uni te d St at es " an d m os t of th em , "u nl ik e Mr. Vil la
, ha ve ne ve r so ld il le ga l dr ug s in t hi s

co un try o r ot he rwis e br ok en th e la ws o f t h i s co un try." Not in g th e ap pe ll an t's pr io r 30 m on th se nt en ce fo r il le ga l reen try, th e co ur t co nc lu de d th at on ly a hi gh er se nt en ce

w ou ld be su ffi ci en t to se rv e th e pu rp os es of sp eci fic an d ge ne ral de te rren ce , t o
p r o mo t e res pe ct fo r th e im m ig rat io n la ws, an d to av oi d un warra nt ed se nt en ci n g di sp ari ti es

.

-3

-W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret i o n i n s en te nc in g

Vil la -Ma ld on ad o to 37 m on th s, th e bo tt om of hi s gu id el in e ran ge

. The di st ric t co ur t ha s "wi de la ti tu de to weig h th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s in each cas e an d as si gn so m e fact or s
gr eat er weig ht th an ot he rs in de te rm in in g an ap pr op ria te se nt en ce." Uni te d St at es v. Bri dg es , 56 9 F.3 d 3 7 4
, 3 7 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). The co ur t care fu ll y co ns id ered th e
ap pe ll an t's arg um en ts fo r a va ri a nc e bu t co nc lu de d th at a 37 m on th se nt en ce was

su ffi ci en t bu t no t gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry to se rv e th e pu rp os es of § 35 53 (a). The
ap pe ll an t's sen te nc e is no t s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le

.

Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-