Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Martin LIMA-PACHECO, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-29
Citations: 225 F. App'x 412
Docket Number: No. 06-3184
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Martin LIMA-PACHECO, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 412–413

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Martin LIMA-PACHECO, Appellant.
No. 06-3184.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: May 24, 2007.
Filed: May 29, 2007.
John James Ware, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.
Caterina M. Ditraglia, Federal Public Defender’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Martin Lima-Pacheco, Big Spring, TX, pro se.
Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Martin Lima-Pacheco pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Having calculated a Guidelines imprisonment range of 70-87 months, the district court sentenced him to 75 months. Lima-Pacheco appeals, arguing that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not consider relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that should have received significant weight. We disagree. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (appellate review for unreasonableness).
The record shows that the district court properly considered the undisputed advisory Guidelines range, the nature of the offense, the defendant's circumstances and history (including repeated unlawful entries, deportations, and imprisonment), sentencing objectives (especially deterrence), and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities. We hold that the sentence the district court then imposed is not unreasonable. See United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 741 (8th Cir.2006) (addressing consideration of § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Sebastian, 436 F.3d 913, 915-16 (8th Cir.2006) (with regard to determination "that certain disparities are warranted," recognizing both Congress's policymaking power and Attorney General's prosecutorial discretion).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.