The Honor able John Corbe tt O’ Mear a, United States District Court f or the Ea stern District * of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

File Na me: 10a0734n.06 Nos. 08-5550 and 08- 5551 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. AN A IS AB E LP E R E Z-LOP E Z, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

BEF ORE: COL E and WHI TE, Circuit J udg es; O’MEARA, D istrict J udg e. * JOHN CORBET T O’MEARA, Distr ict Judge. I n th is c on so lid a te d a pp e a l, d e fend antappellant Ana

Perez-L opez appea ls both her sentenc e for illega l r e-e ntry to the United States and the

revoc ation of super

vised rele ase f

rom a pre vious conviction. Perez-L opez contends the imposition of a 46- month sentenc e for illega l re-e ntry

and a f our-month conse cutive sente nce r evoking supervised r elea se is proce durally and substantively unrea sonable. For the rea sons se t f orth below,

we wi ll AF F IRM the se nte nc e s o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. BACKG ROUND Perez-L opez was depor

ted to Mexi co on J une 6, 2007, afte r completing a fede ral sente nce for distributing c ocaine . Four months later, on Octobe r 11, 2007, she wa s arr ested for illega l re-e ntry to the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) a nd (b)( 2). Pere z-L opez pleaded guilty andNos. 08-5550 and 08- 5551

United States v. Pe rez-Lopez Pag e 2 stipulated that there w as proba ble ca use to proce ed with re vocation of supervised release from her previous convic tion. Th e Pr e se nte nc e I nv e sti g a tio n Re po rt c a lc ulate d a

ba se of fe nse lev el of 8. Sixte e n le ve ls

wer e adde d beca

use her prior off ense involved a

drug traff

icking crime f

or which sh e re ce ived a

s e n t e n c e i ne x c e s s o f

1 3 m o n t h s ; an d t h r e e l e v e l s w e r e s u b t r a c t e d f o r a c c e p t an c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y, resulting in an offe nse leve l of 21. Appellant had se ven cr iminal hist ory points based on one point for a prior drunk driving conviction, three points for the prior coca ine case , and three points f or commit t i n g t h e i l l eg al re -entry offe nse while on super

vised rele ase a

nd less than two y ear s after rele ase f rom prison, all of which resulted in a criminal history cate g ory of I V. The c orre sponding Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s r ang e fo r i mpr iso nme nt w a s 5 7- 71 mon ths

. Pursuant to U .S.S.G. § 5K1.1, the g overnme nt move d for a two-leve l reduc tion in sentence based on A

ppellant’s “substantial a ssistance.” The dist rict court g rante d the motion, and the total

o ff en s e l ev el wa s re d

u ce d t o 1 9

. W i t h a c ri m i n al h i s t o ry ca t ego ry o f I V, t h e G u i d el i n es ra n ge beca me 46-57 months. The gove rnment recommended a sentenc e of 46 months; Perez-L opez asked fo r 3 0 mo nth s. Appellant stipulated that she violated her supervised release on her pre vious conviction by

c omm itt in g a n e w c r i m e , i l l e g a l r e - e n t r y ; n o t s u b m i t t i n g t o D N A t e s t i n g ; an d n o t p art i c i p a t i ng in substance a

buse treatment. The applica ble Guideline r ang e cal l ed for a sente nce of four to ten months; and the court imposed a four- month se ntence to r un consec utive to the 46-month sentence , re su lti ngin a

tot a l se nte nc e of

50 mon ths

.Nos. 08-5550 and 08- 5551

United States v. Pe rez-Lopez Pag e 3 II. AN AL YSI S Fo l l o wi n g United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005 ), t h e United States Sentencing Gu ide lin e s are a dv iso ry

rathe r t ha n m and ato ry ; and

“ a pp e llate re vie w o f s e nte nc ingde c isi on s is limit ed to deter

mining whe ther they

are ‘re asonable .’” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). Al tho ug h w e have pr e vio usly hel d that a “ re bu tta ble a pp e llate pr e su mpt ion

of re a so na ble ne ss” applies “to a

sentenc e that fa lls withi n a prope rly calc ulated g uidelines rang e,” United S t a tes v. W all s , 546 F.3d 728, 736 ( 6 Cir. 2008), “the pr esumption is not bi nding.” R it a v . U n it e d S ta tes , th 55 1 U .S. 33 8, 34 7 ( 20 07 ). Sup e rv ise d r e le a se re vo c a tio n ca se s ar e re vie we d th e same wa y a s “ a ll other sente nces–unde r a de fer ential abuse of discre tion standard for rea sonablene ss.” United States v. Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 575 ( 6 Cir. 2007). th I n a s s e s s in g r e a s o n a

b le n e s s , th is c o u rt r e v ie w s th e s e n te n c e f o r b o th p r o c e d

ural a nd substantive err or. Ga ll , 5 52 U. S. at 51

. Pr oc e dura l e rr or s inc lud e “ fa ili ngto c a lc ulate (o r i mpr op e rl y calc ulating) the Guidelines ra ng e, tre ating the Guidelines a s mandatory , failing to consider the § 35 53 (a ) f a c tor s, se le c tin g a

se nt e n c e ba se d o n c le arl y

e rr on e ou s f

a c ts, or fa ili ngto a de qu a te ly

e xpla in the chose n sentenc e.” Id . “A se ntence may be conside red substantively u n reasonable whe re the dis tr ic t c ourt

se le c ts the se nte nc e arb itr ari ly , b a se s th e se nte nc e on imp e rm iss ibl e factors , fa ils to consider pe rtin ent § 3553(a ) fa ctors or g ives an unre asonable amount of we ight to any pertinent fac tor.” Un ite d S

tat es v . B ro wn , 5 5 7 F

. 3 d 2 9 7 , 2 9 9 ( 6 Ci r . 2009) ce r t
. denied , 129 U.S. 2884 th (2009)( citation omitted). I n this case Per ez-L opez argues that her sentenc e is pr ocedur ally unrea sonable “ beca use the

c ourt pa id o nly lip se rv ic e to c on sid e ratio n o f t he § 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s and fa ile d to a de qu a te ly

e xpla inNos. 08-5550 and 08- 5551

United States v. Pe rez-Lopez Pag e 4 the rea sons f

or the sentenc e imposed.” Appellant Br . at 10. She claims that the district cour t did not adequately consider the following : he r family situation, he r lack of criminal involve m en t since

ree ntering the country , the alleg ed over -rep re s entation of her cr iminal hist ory cause d by

her pr ior drug conviction, or the di sparity betwee n her sentence and sentences impos ed on simil arly char g ed defe ndants who are elig ible for “fa st-trac k” or ear ly dispositi on prog rams in jurisdictions t hat have the m. I n addition, Perez-L opez claims that her se ntence for illeg al re -entry , as we ll as the

c on se c uti ve fo ur -m on th s e nte nc e re vo kin g he r p re vio us su pe rv ise d r e le a se , is su

bs tanti ve ly

unrea sonable be cause the district court g ave a n unnece ssary

amount o f weig ht to her prior dr ug conviction and the se ntence was g reater than ne cessa ry to comply

with 18 U.S.C. § 3553. A. P r oc e dur al R e as ona ble ne ss Perez-L opez doe s not c ontend that the district c ourt improperly calc ulated t h e Guidelines rang e, tre ated the G uidelines as mandatory rathe r than a dvisory , or selec ted a se ntence based on clea rly err oneous facts. I nstead, she argues t hat t he court paid onl y lip service to c onsideration of the § 3553(a ) fa ctors and f ailed to ade quately

explain it s rea sons for the se ntence imposed. Th is c ourt ha s f ound tha t “ the re is no re qu ir e me nt t hat th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e ng a g e in a

ri tua lis tic incantation of the § 3553(a) fac tors it considers.” United States v. Chandler , 419 F.3d 484, 488 (6 th Cir . 2 00 5) (c itatio n o mit te d) . M or e ov e r, wh e n a se nte nc e is i mpo sed wit hin the a pp lic a ble Guidelin e s r an g e , a s h e r e , th e s e n te n c in g c o u rt n e e d n o t e xp li c it ly s tate th a t it h a s c o n s id e r e d and reje cted e ach of

the def endant’ s arguments. Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007).Nos. 08-5550 and 08- 5551

United States v. Pe rez-Lopez Pag e 5 I n t h i s ca s e P er ez -Lop ez ’s d ef en s e co u n s el ar gu edfo r a s en t en ce b el o w t h e G u i d el i n es ra n ge beca use of he r fa

mily situation, her lack of c riminal involvement after her illeg al re -entry , and the

over r e p r e s e n tati o n o f h e r c r im in a l h is to r y c a u s e d b y h e r p r io r dr

u g c o n v ic ti o n . D e f

e nse counse l

ex p l ai n edt h at P er ez -Lop ez re tu rn edt o t h e U n i t edS t at es b ec au s e h er ch i l dre n ’s p ri m ary l an gu age was Eng lish; and when she returne d to Mex ico, her children ha d difficulty

assimilating into Mexi can culture be cause they

did not spe ak Spanish. The district cour t did consider this, along with the fac t t h at t h e c h i l dre nwo u l d

b e w i t h o u tt h ei r m o t h er wh i l e s h e wa s i n ca rc er at ed , an d n o t ed , “T h es e t h i n gs often do c ome bac k o n i nnocent pe ople like her children.” SentencingTR p.11. The cour t continued, But the pla in fac t is, thi s is about as bold an immigration case a s y ou see. I mean, somebody who comes ove r her e illeg ally , deals c ocaine , is caug ht, sentence d, convicted, de ported a

nd comes rig ht back. I

mean, you know, that’s–that’s the problem. I f these c hildren we re bor n in the United States, they ’re citizens, but I don’t know wher e they wer e born. I t doesn’t make a ny differ ence . The fa ct is their mother i s n o tl e g a l l y i nt h i s c o u n t r y. I f she ha s raised the m here , then she’s r aised the m beca use she’ s been he re illega lly . And if Eng lish is their first languag e bec ause the y ’ve be en ra ised here , then that’ s– sh e ’s do ne the m w ro ng , a s th e y sa y in t he c ountr y mus ic bu sin e ss. Id

. The Guide lines themselves provide, “ I n sentenc ing a defe ndant convic t ed of an offe nse . .

. , family ties and re sponsibili ties are not ordinarily rele vant in deter

mining whe ther a

depar ture may be wa rra nted.” U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6.Nos. 08-5550 and 08- 5551

United States v. Pe rez-Lopez Pag e 6 The district cour

t made little mention of Perez-L opez’s lack of criminal involvement af

ter her illeg al re -entry

except expressing, “ Well, thank goodne ss.” SentencingTR p.12. H oweve r, she

was a rre sted bac k in the United States mere ly four months afte r her

deportation. P er ez -L opez also argues that her prior convic tion resulted in an over repr esentation of her

c ri min a l hi sto ry . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a c kn ow le dg e d th e 16 -l e ve l inc re a se in of fe ns e le ve l and sa id i t ha d ha nd le d so me c a se s in

Ar izon a and ha d s e e n th os e kin ds of

“ bumps ” the re e ve n w ithre la tiv e ly less serious crimes like “an alcoholic fight or something like that.” Id . In this case, thoug h, the cour t fo un d, “ [H]e re we have on e wh e re the re re a lly is a pr e tty se ri ou s re a so n w hy the de po rt a tio n r e su lts in a 16-leve l bump, because we g ot a coc aine de aler here .” Id

. Another f

actor in the § 3553 sentenc ing calc ulus is “the need to avoid unwarr anted se ntence d is p ar it ie s a mo n g d e f

e n d an ts w it

h s im il ar r e c o r d s w h o h a v e b e e n f o u n d g u il ty o f s im il ar c o n d u c t[

. ]” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)

. I n t h e co n text of illeg al re -entry case s, this means that the court may

c on sid e r t

he a va ila bil ity of a re du c e d s e nte nc e in j ur isd ic tio ns havin g a “ fa st- tr a c k” pr og ra

m. Although the rec ord re fl ec t s t h at the district court did not ac cept de fense counsel’s a rg ument reg ardingthe disparity , the court did ac knowledg e that it had sat on c ases in Ar izona and found, as noted above , that Perez-L opez’s illega l re-e ntry was more serious t han other case s beca use she wa s a convic ted coc aine de aler

. The c ourt’s fa ilure to weig h Perez-L opez’s arguments in favor of a downward de parture cannot be found proc edura lly unrea sonable, particularly in light of the f act that she was sente nced at the lowest e nd of the Guide lines rang e.Nos. 08-5550 and 08- 5551

United States v. Pe rez-Lopez Pag e 7 B. Su bst ant ive Unr e as ona ble ne ss Pe re z-L op e z ar g ue s th a t he r 4 6-m on th se nte nc e fo r i lle g a l r e -e ntr y and he r f our- mon th

c on se c uti ve se nte nc e re vo kin g su pe rv ise d r e le a se on

he r p re vio us c on vic tio n a re su bs tanti ve ly

u n reasonable be cause the sentenc ing judg e g ave a n unnece ssary

amount of we ight to her prior conviction and the se ntence s are g reater than ne cessa ry to comply

with § 3553. Th e dis tr ic t court

did no t se le c t th e se nte nc e s arb itr ari ly , d id n ot b a se the m on imp e rm iss ibl e fac tors, and did not fail to consider the § 3553 fa ctors. See B rown, supra. We also find it did not g ive an unr easona

ble amount of we ight to her prior drug conviction. Both the se ntence for illeg al

re- entry and the r evocation of supervised relea se on the pre vious conviction were the lowest of the Guidelines ra

ng e. Af ter the pr obation depar

tment had re commended 10 months for the violation of supervised r elea se, t he court considere d it but thought it was “probably too much.” Sentencing TR at 19. The se ntencingjudge believed a consec utive sentenc e wa s called f or “to re spect the e arlier sentenc e that wa s imposed” by the judg e in the prior dr

ug case . III . C ON CL USI ON I n revie wing the district c ourt’s imposit ion of both the sentenc e for illega l r e-e ntry and for violation of supervised r elea se, we find neither was procedura lly nor substantively

unrea sonable a

nd there fore AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.