09
- 34 39
- cr U ni t ed St at es v. G ar ci a- Luna 1 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS 2 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 3 4 S UM M ARY OR DER 5 6 RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HAVE P REC E DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A 7 S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR AF TER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY 8 FE DERA L RU LE O F AP PE LLATE PROC EDUR E 3 2 . 1 AN D TH I S CO URT’ S LO CAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . W HEN 9 CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A D O CUM ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE 10 E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L AP P E ND I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON 11 “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A C OP Y OF I T ON ANY 12 P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . 13 1 4 A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C ourtof A ppeal s forthe Second C i r cui t , hel d at 1 5 the D ani elPatr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew 1 6 Y ork, on the 21 day of A pr i l , tw o thous and t en. st 17 1 8 P R E S E N T : G U ID O C A L A B R E S I, 1 9 RO BE RT D. S AC K,

GE RA RD E
. L YNC H, 20 21 C i r cui tJudges
. 22

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 23 2 4 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appellee , 25 v. N o. 09- 3439- cr 26 27 V IC T O R M A N U E L G A R C IA -L U N A , 28 2 9 a ls o kn o w n a s V IC T O R M A N U E L J O Y A R IN , 3 0 a ls o kn o w n a s V IC T O R G A R C IA , 3 1 a ls o kn o w n a s J O S E R . M A L D O N A D O , a l s o kn o w n a s V I C T O R MA N U E L J O Y A R I M, 32 D e fen da n t-Ap

p e lla n t. 33 34
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- 3 5 A PPEA RI N G FO R A PPELL A N T: M i t chel l A
. G ol ub, G ol ub & G ol ub, L L P, N ew 3 6 Y ork, N ew Y ork, on s ubm i s s i on. 37 3 8 A PPEA RI N G FOR APPE LLE E: A l exande r A
. Sol om on, A s s i s t antUni t e d St at es 3 9 A tt orney ( D avi d C
. J ames, A s s i s t antU ni t ed 4 0 S t at es A tt orney, of cou nsel ), forB enton J. 4 1 C am p b ell , U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne y for th e E astern 4 2 D i s tr i c to f New York, Br oo kl yn , New York, on 4 3 s ubm i s s i on. 4 4 A p p ea l f rom the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfor the E astern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk2 1 (S an d ra L
. T o w n es, Jud g e). 2 UP ON DUE C ONS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJUDGE D, AND 3 D E C R E E D th a t th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rtis A F F IR M E D
. 4 V ict o r G arc ia-L u n a a p p ea ls f rom a se n tenc e o f 70 m o n ths in p ri so n an dthree y ea rs 5 of supervi sed rel ease im p o sed for a co n v ict ion , foll o w ing a g u il ty p lea, of il lega l r ee n try 6 i nt o the U ni t ed St at es af t erdeport at i on i n vi ol at i on of 8 U
. S. C
. § 1326( a)
. W e as s um e the 7 part i es ’ f

ami l i ar i ty w i th the r el evantf act s and pr ocedur alhi s t ory of thi s cas e, and the 8 iss u e s p re se n ted o n th is ap p e a l. 9 W e r evi ew s ent ence s undera “de f er ent i alabus e- of

- di s cr et i on s t andar d. ” U ni t ed 1 0 St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d 180, 189 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( en banc ) , quot i ng G al l v. U ni t ed 1 1 S ta te s , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 4 0 (2 0 0 7 ). I n c o m in g to ap ro c e du ra lly re a s o n ab le s e n te n c e , a 1 2 di s tr i ctcourtm us tcons i derthe f act or s l i s t ed i n 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) , i ncludi ng the 1 3 advi s ory Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange, and “c onducti t s ow n i ndepende ntr evi ew of the 1 4 se n ten c in g fa c to rs, a id e db y th e a rg u m e n ts o f th e p ro se c u tio n a n dd e fe n se ,” in o rd e r to 1 5 r eac h “an i nf

orm ed and i ndi vi dual i zed j udgm ent. . . as t o w hati s ‘ s uf f i ci ent , butnot 1 6 g re a te r th a n n e c e s s a ry ’ t o fu lf ill th e p u rp o s e s o f s e n te n c in g .” Id ., q u o tin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 7 3 5 5 3 (a ). 1 8 G ar ci a- L una ar gues thathi s s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l y unr eas onabl e, becaus e the 1 9 d istri ct co u rtfail ed to g ive a d eq u ate c o n side rati o n to the 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 5 3 (a) fac tors. In 2 0 part i cul ar , he ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourtf ai l ed t o t ake a dequat el y i nt o acc ountthe 2 1 ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng hi s r e- entry i nt o the U ni t ed St at es . G ar ci a- L una cl ai m s that3 1 f ol l ow i ng hi s deport at i on t o C ol om bi a, he cont act ed age nt s he knew atthe D rug 2 E nf

or cementA gency ( “D E A ”) , and t ol d them abouta nar cot i cs tr af f i cki ng r i ng he had 3 lea rn e do f w h ile in p riso n . A c c o rd in g to G a rc ia- L u n a , D E A a g e n ts in stru c ted h im to 4 tr avelt o M exi co, w her e they s ecr et ed hi m i n a hi dden compartm enti n a vehi cl e i nt o the 5 U ni t ed St at es s o thathe coul d connec tthe tr af f i cker s w i th the D E A agent s . A f t erm aki ng 6 th is c o n n e c tio n , h e c laim s th a t h e lef t C a lifo rn ia w ithth e tac it p e rm iss io n o f th e a g e n ts to 7 r eturn t o N ew Y ork, w her e he w as eventual l y arr es t ed f ordr i vi ng underthe i nf l uence of 8 a lc o h o l, a n ds ub s e q u e n tly c h a rg e dw ith ille g a l r e e n try . 9 T he di s tr i ctcourtcl ear l y cons i der ed G ar ci a- L una’ s s t ory r egar di ng the 1 0 ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng hi s i l l egalr eentry i nt o the country. I ts i m pl y di d notbel i eve 1 1 hi m . T he di s tr i ctcourtf ound thatthe s t ory w as notcr edi bl e, becaus e i tw as not 1 2 c o rro b o ra ted b y a n y g o v e rn m e n t so u rc e s a n db e c au se o f G a rc ia- L u n a ’s h isto ry o f d e c e it 1 3 a n dth e u se o f fa lse n a m e s to au th o rities . T h e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n n o t to c re d it 1 4 G ar ci a- L una’ s s t ory r egar di ng hi s r eentry w as compl et el y r eas onabl e gi ven the l ack of 1 5 corr obor at i on and the l egi t i m at e ques t i ons aboutG ar ci a- L una’ s cr edi bi l i ty. H i s s ent ence 1 6 w a s th e re fo re n o t p ro c e du ra lly u n re a s o n ab le o n th is g ro u n d
. 1 7 N orw as i totherw i s e unr eas onabl e. T he di s tr i ctcourtexpl i ci t l y s t at ed thati thad 1 8 c o n sid e re dth e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs, a n dn o ted th a t th e se n ten c e sh o u lda ffo rda d e q u a te 1 9 det err ence bef

or e s ent enci ng G ar ci a- L una t o the bott om of the uncha l l enged gui del i nes 2 0 r ange of

70 t o 87 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . G i ven G ar ci a- L una’ s hi s t ory of nar cot i cs 2 1 deal i ng and par ol e vi ol at i ons , thi s s ent ence w as w el l w i thi n the l i m i t s of the di s tr i ct4 1 court ’ s di s cr et i on. See i d. ( “W e w i l l
. . . s etas i de a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ubs t ant i ve 2 det erm i nat i on onl y i n exce pt i onalcas es w her e the tr i alcourt ’ s deci s i on cannotbe l ocat ed 3 w i thi n the r ange of perm i s s i bl e dec i s i ons . ” ( emphasi s and i nt ernalquot at i ons m arks 4 o m itte d ))
. 5 F o rth e f

o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u rti s AF F I RMED
. 6 7 FOR TH E CO UR T: 8 C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt 9 10 11