UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

SERGIO CANUL-YANEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 10-2051 

(D.C. No. 2:09-CR-02430-BB-1) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, EBEL and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. 

 

Defendant-Appellant Sergio Canul-Yanez pled guilty, without a plea agreement, 

to reentering the United States illegally after having been previously deported subsequent 

to a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). 

Although the district court calculated that Canul-Yanez’s advisory guidelines range 

 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to grant the parties= request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. 

P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

August 20, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 10-2051 Document: 01018481398 Date Filed: 08/20/2010 Page: 1 
2 

sentence was 41 to 51 months’ imprisonment, a calculation Canul-Yanez does not 

challenge on appeal, it sentenced him to only 34 months’ imprisonment. Canul-Yanez 

now challenges the substantive reasonableness of that sentence. Exercising jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we AFFIRM. 

 We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. 

See United States v. Rojas, 531 F.3d 1203, 1209 (10th Cir. 2008). “A district court 

abuses its discretion when it renders a judgment that is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, 

or manifestly unreasonable.” United States v. Friedman, 554 F.3d 1301, 1307 (10th Cir. 

2009) (quotation omitted). A sentence that falls within the properly calculated guidelines 

range is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. Rojas, 531 F.3d at 1209. 

 Here, the district court’s sentence was well-within the acceptable range of 

reasonableness. The district court explained that Canul-Yanez had a history of substance 

abuse including a fairly dated conviction for cocaine distribution—and the district court 

acknowledged it was dated—and a recent arrest for using methamphetamine. It further 

found that Canul-Yanez, in particular, needed deterrence from future efforts to reenter the 

country illegally because he failed to grasp the seriousness of the offense as he reentered 

the country just a few months after his previous deportation. The district court also 

acknowledged that, like Canul-Yanez, illegal immigrants frequently come to the United 

States for economic and family reasons. Moreover, it ultimately imposed a belowguideline sentence that reflects some of the mitigating factors, such as Canul-Yanez’s 

family ties and cultural assimilation, that Canul-Yanez argues makes the sentence of 34 

months’ imprisonment still unreasonable. Under these circumstances, however, we 

Appellate Case: 10-2051 Document: 01018481398 Date Filed: 08/20/2010 Page: 2 
3 

cannot conclude the district abused its discretion by imposing a sentence of 34 months’ 

imprisonment. 

 AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 10-2051 Document: 01018481398 Date Filed: 08/20/2010 Page: 3