Source: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2007/03/06-2269.htm
Timestamp: 2020-02-24 21:26:10
Document Index: 291842583

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1326', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 3553', '§ 2', '§ 2']

06-2269 -- U.S. v. Vaca-Perez -- 03/26/2007
| Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added | (26952 bytes) (21131 bytes)
No. 06-2269
Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges
On December 29, 2004, Mr. Vaca-Perez, a citizen of Mexico, was arrested in New Mexico for illegally reentering the United States after his deportation on July 19, 2004. Presentence Report ("PSR") at 1, ¶¶ 3-5. Prior to his deportation, Mr. Vaca-Perez had been convicted of burglary and attempted escape in Colorado. Id. at ¶¶ 10, 21. Mr. Vaca-Perez accepted responsibility and pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States after being deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
The PSR, prepared in accordance with USSG § 2L1.2, suggested a base offense level of eight. PSR at ¶ 9.(1) The PSR further recommended that Mr. Vaca-Perez receive an eight-level upward adjustment pursuant to USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) because he had a prior aggravated felony conviction (attempted escape). Id. at ¶ 10. The PSR, however, also suggested a three-level downward adjustment, pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1, for acceptance of responsibility. Id. at ¶ 15. As a result, the PSR calculated Mr. Vaca-Perez's adjusted offense level as 13 and his criminal history category as V. Id. at Part D. The resulting recommended Guidelines sentencing range was 30 to 37 months, and the PSR identified no departure factors. Id.; id at ¶ 46.
The district court rejected Mr. Vaca-Perez's arguments, ordering a sentence of 30 months and an additional year of supervised release; Mr. Vaca-Perez appealed. On May 11, 2006, we remanded the case to the district court for resentencing because we found that "the district court offered no reasons for the sentence it imposed other than its reference to the PSR's factual findings and the guidelines, and its citation to Mr. Vaca-Perez's offense conduct. The [district] court did not refer to the § 3553(a) factors." United States v. Vaca-Perez, 178 Fed. Appx. 841, 843 (10th Cir. May 11, 2006) (unpub.). The district court was directed, consistent with United States v. Sanchez-Juarez, 446 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2006), to provide a better record of the sentence imposed. Vaca-Perez, 178 Fed. Appx. at 844.
This matter coming before the Court for re-sentencing pursuant to the mandate of the Tenth Circuit of Appeals and the Court having given due consideration to the Appellate Court's instructions, hereby vacates and sets aside the sentence heretofore imposed in the information, Criminal 05-391, on June 22, 2005, and will re-sentence the defendant based on the Appellate Court's remand.
Mr. Vaca-Perez presently contends that: (a) his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court (still) failed to explain sufficiently its imposition of the 30-month sentence and its rejection of his request for a downward departure, and (b) his sentence was substantively unreasonable.(2)
a. Mr. Vaca-Perez contends that, pursuant to our decision in Sanchez-Juarez, his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to explain adequately the basis for his sentence and why it rejected his arguments for a lower sentence in light of Section 3553(a) factors. This argument, however, is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Ruiz-Terrazas, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 576034 (10th Cir. 2007). In Ruiz-Terrazas, we explained that Sanchez-Juarez is implicated only when: "(i) there was 'no indication' by the district court that it had considered the Section 3553(a) factors, and (ii) we [are] otherwise unable ourselves to discern a 'clear explanation of the sentence' in the record." Ruiz-Terrazas, 2007 WL 576034, at *5 (citing Sanchez-Juarez, 446 F.3d at 1116); see also United States v. Jarrillo-Luna, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 646145, at *3 (10th Cir. 2007) ("Lest any doubt remain about the meaning of Sanchez-Juarez, we hold that a district court's duty to explain why it chose the given sentence does not also require it to explain why it decided against a different sentence.").
2007 WL 576034, at *5. Accordingly, we find no procedural violation by the district court in imposing the 30-month sentence at resentencing. Indeed, if anything, the district court went beyond what Ruiz-Terrazas requires by explaining on the record how Mr. Vaca-Perez's arguments for mitigation specifically factored into the sentence imposed ­ that is, as influencing the district court's decision to select a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range.
Mr. Vaca-Perez separately maintains that the particular circumstances of his case warrant a below-Guidelines range sentence, an issue that, by contrast, Congress has specifically empowered us to review in Section 3553(a). In particular, Mr. Vaca-Perez again highlights as mitigating factors his non-violent history, his cultural assimilation (albeit due to his many years of residing illegally in this country), and the fact that he only reentered illegally because of his children. The district court, however, considered each of these factors in imposing his sentence and, indeed, explained that they were the reasons why it chose to impose a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range. Under Kristl we cannot say that the district court behaved unreasonably.
*. 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 and 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.
1. The PSR mistakenly refers to USSG § 2D1.2(a), which relates to drug offenses, instead of USSG § 2L1.2(a).
2. Mr. Vaca-Perez also generally contends the district court impermissibly considered the Guidelines sentence range to be mandatory because the district court failed to consider his proffered grounds for mitigation, provided no reason for rejecting his request for a downward departure, and imposed an otherwise unreasonable sentence. Because this argument overlaps and adds nothing of substance to Mr. Vaca-Perez's other two contentions, we do not consider it separately.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2007/03/06-2269.htm.