Court Opinion

ID: 9352372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-05 21:01:05.701249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:01:50.945556
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13223    Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2023   Page: 1 of 10

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                            Nos. 21-13223, 21-13335
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellee,
        versus
        MARIO ROBERTO BONILLA-DIAZ,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.
                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket Nos. 8:21-cr-00155-RAL-CPT-1,
                            8:21-cr-00159-RAL-JSS-1
                           _____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13223      Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 01/05/2023     Page: 2 of 10

        2                      Opinion of the Court                21-13223

        Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Mario Roberto Bonilla-Diaz appeals his 42-month sentence
        for illegal reentry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). He argues that
        two guideline enhancements that the district court applied based
        on prior convictions, U.S.S.G § 2L1.2(b)(1) and (3), are unconstitu-
        tional because they violate the equal-protection and due-process
        rights of noncitizens. Still, though, he concedes that Circuit prece-
        dent forecloses this argument. Bonilla-Diaz also maintains that his
        sentence, a minor downward variance from the guideline range, is
        substantively unreasonable. After careful review, we affirm.
                                         I.
              In 2021, Bonilla-Diaz pled guilty to a lone count of illegal
        reentry after removal following a conviction for an aggravated fel-
        ony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2).
               According to his presentence investigation report (“PSR”),
        Bonilla-Diaz, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United
        States in March 2004 with his mother and two minor brothers. He
        was apprehended in Brownsville, Texas, and released pending a
        hearing. In October 2004, at the age of 10, an immigration judge
        ordered his removal in absentia after he did not appear for a re-
        moval hearing.
               Six years later, when Bonilla-Diaz was 16, he was arrested
        for aggravated robbery in Texas. According to a police affidavit, he
USCA11 Case: 21-13223      Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 01/05/2023     Page: 3 of 10

        21-13223               Opinion of the Court                        3

        attempted to rob a woman and her son with a BB gun, placing it in
        the boy’s face, though he and his partner left when the women said
        they had no money. Bonilla-Diaz pled guilty and was sentenced to
        five years’ imprisonment. In April 2015, shortly after his release to
        parole, immigration officials executed the in absentia removal or-
        der and returned Bonilla-Diaz to Honduras.
              Three years later, in 2018, Bonilla-Diaz illegally reentered
        the United States in Texas. He was arrested, convicted of illegal
        reentry, and sentenced by a Texas federal district court to 24
        months’ imprisonment. Bonilla-Diaz was removed to Honduras a
        second time in April 2020.
               According to Bonilla-Diaz, he came to the United States in
        2018 with his girlfriend and daughter, who later applied for asylum,
        because MS-13 members had threatened his life and his family’s
        lives and had shot at him after he resisted their extortion attempts
        and refused to join the gang.
               After his second removal, Bonilla-Diaz again illegally reen-
        tered the United States. He came to the attention of immigration
        authorities after an arrest for battery in Florida in March 2021.
        When questioned by immigration officers, he said that he had paid
        a smuggler $7,000 to get to the United States to see his family and
        escape gang violence in Honduras.
              Bonilla-Diaz’s PSR recommended a guideline imprisonment
        range of 46 to 57 months, based on a total offense level of 19 and a
        criminal history category of IV. The offense level included two
USCA11 Case: 21-13223        Document: 41-1       Date Filed: 01/05/2023       Page: 4 of 10

        4                        Opinion of the Court                    21-13223

        enhancements based on prior convictions: (1) a 4-level increase for
        committing the instant offense after a prior illegal reentry convic-
        tion, see U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A); and (2) a 10-level increase for
        committing a felony, for which the sentence imposed was five
        years or more, after being ordered removed from the United
        States, see id. § 2L1.2(b)(3)(A). Bonilla-Diaz objected to the 10-
        level enhancement on equal-protection grounds, arguing that it im-
        properly penalized noncitizens, though he conceded we had re-
        jected this argument in United States v. Osorto, 995 F.3d 801 (11th
        Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 470 (2021). [Id. at 19]
               At sentencing, the district court overruled the objection and
        adopted the PSR’s factual statements and guideline range of 46 to
        57 months. Bonilla-Diaz requested a sentence of 21 months. He
        asked the court to disregard the 10-level enhancement in part be-
        cause it was based on an in absentia removal order entered when
        he was 10 years old and a prior conviction already accounted for in
        his criminal history. Bonilla-Diaz personally explained that he did
        not intend to disrespect the court or the law and that he had re-
        turned to the United States to be with his family. The government
        asked for a guideline sentence of 50 months.
              The district court ultimately imposed a sentence of 42
        months, a minor downward variance from the guideline range.1
        The court explained its sentence as follows:

        1 At the same hearing, the district court also imposed a concurrent sentence
        of six months of imprisonment after revoking Bonilla-Diaz’s supervised
USCA11 Case: 21-13223         Document: 41-1        Date Filed: 01/05/2023         Page: 5 of 10

        21-13223                   Opinion of the Court                               5

               All right. Well, I noticed that he has a previous illegal
               re-entry after deportation for which the judge in
               Texas gave him a mid-range sentence of 24 months.
               I think his guideline range was 21 to 27. I don’t know
               that it would be appropriate for me to give him less—
               less time than that.
                      He presents a sad situation obviously. He’s
               facing a hostile environment back in Honduras when
               he’s deported with very little family structure there.
               I’m not convinced that a sentence of 56 months is a
               reasonable sentence. I think all things being consid-
               ered, a small variance is at issue.
        The court stated that, in imposing the sentence, it had considered
        the § 3553(a) factors and the sentencing guidelines, and that, in its
        judgment, the 42-month sentence was sufficient but not greater
        than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing.
              Bonilla-Diaz now appeals his sentence, pressing two argu-
        ments. First, he contends that the sentencing enhancements under
        U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1) and (b)(3) are unconstitutional and violate
        the Fifth Amendment’s guarantees of due process and equal

        release from the prior illegal reentry offense. Although Bonilla-Diaz filed a
        notice of appeal in the supervised-release case, he does not raise any independ-
        ent arguments about his sentence in that case, so we deem that appeal aban-
        doned. See United States v. Ifediba, 46 F.4th 1225, 1241 n.8 (11th Cir. 2022).
        Accordingly, we AFFIRM his revocation sentence.
USCA11 Case: 21-13223        Document: 41-1        Date Filed: 01/05/2023        Page: 6 of 10

        6                         Opinion of the Court                     21-13223

        protection by discriminating against him as a noncitizen. Second,
        he maintains that the district court abused its discretion and im-
        posed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
                                             II.
               Bonilla-Diaz’s challenge to the § 2L1.2(b) enhancements is
        foreclosed by binding precedent, as he acknowledges. He raises
        the issue solely to seek further review by the Supreme Court.
                In Bonilla-Diaz’s view, § 2L1.2(b)(1) and (b)(3) discriminate
        against noncitizens by counting their prior convictions for both the
        offense-level and criminal-history category calculations. But we
        have rejected arguments that the same or similar provisions unlaw-
        fully discriminate against noncitizens. See Osorto, 995 F.3d at 821–
        22 (holding that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2) and (3) satisfy procedural
        due process and do not violate equal protection); United States v.
        Adeleke, 968 F.2d 1159, 1160–61 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that the
        previous version of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1) does not violate equal
        protection and does not constitute impermissible double counting
        of criminal history for noncitizens). Bonilla-Diaz concedes that our
        precedent requires affirmance here, and we agree. 2 See United
        States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[A] prior
        panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until

        2 Although neither Osorto nor Adeleke addressed the current version of
        U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1), Bonilla-Diaz raises no independent argument about
        that provision and admits that his challenge is covered by Osorto’s reasoning.
USCA11 Case: 21-13223      Document: 41-1       Date Filed: 01/05/2023     Page: 7 of 10

        21-13223                Opinion of the Court                         7

        it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Su-
        preme Court or by this court sitting en banc.”).
                                         III.
               Bonilla-Diaz also argues that his sentence of 42 months’ im-
        prisonment is substantively unreasonable. We review the reason-
        ableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. Osorto, 995 F.3d
        at 822. As the challenger, Bonilla-Diaz “must shoulder the burden
        of demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable, considering
        the complete record, the § 3553(a) factors, and the substantial def-
        erence we give sentencing courts.” Id. He has not made that show-
        ing here.
               The district court has wide discretion to impose a sentence
        that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to fulfill the pur-
        poses of sentencing, which include retribution, deterrence, and
        protection of the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In making that
        determination, the court must consider all the § 3553(a) factors, in-
        cluding the defendant’s history and characteristics, the nature and
        circumstances of the offense, and the guideline range, as well as the
        parties’ nonfrivolous arguments. See United States v. Rosales-
        Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015). But it is “not required
        to explicitly address each of the § 3553(a) factors or all of the miti-
        gating evidence,” so long as the record reflects its consideration of
        these factors. United States v. Taylor, 997 F.3d 1348, 1354 (11th
        Cir. 2021); United States v. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d 567, 609
        (11th Cir. 2020). And “[t]he decision about how much weight to
        assign a particular sentencing factor is committed to the sound
USCA11 Case: 21-13223      Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2023     Page: 8 of 10

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13223

        discretion of the district court.” Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254
        (quotation marks omitted).
                Nevertheless, the district court abuses it discretion when it
        “(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due
        significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or
        irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in con-
        sidering the proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160,
        1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Bonilla-Diaz argues that the district
        court abused its discretion by giving significant weight to an im-
        proper factor—his prior 24-month sentence for illegal reentry—
        and by failing to consider or giving too little weight to mitigating
        factors that were due significant weight.
               Here, the district court’s sentence of 42 months’ imprison-
        ment is substantively reasonable. The court correctly calculated
        the guideline range. It listened to Bonilla-Diaz’s arguments in mit-
        igation and the government’s arguments in response. And it stated
        that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors and the sentencing
        guidelines. The court also expressly found that a downward vari-
        ance was warranted to account for Bonilla-Diaz’s mitigation argu-
        ments, noting that his case presented a “sad situation obviously”
        and that he was “facing a hostile environment back in Honduras
        when he’s deported with very little family structure there.” That
        the court did not address the mitigating evidence in more detail or
        weigh it more heavily does not amount to an abuse of the court’s
        discretion. See Taylor, 997 F.3d at 1354; Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d
        at 1254.
USCA11 Case: 21-13223      Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2023     Page: 9 of 10

        21-13223               Opinion of the Court                         9

               The district court also properly applied and considered the
        10-level enhancement for a post-removal-order conviction, which
        we have held validly supports Congress’s goal “to deter noncitizens
        with prior convictions from repeatedly reentering the United
        States.” Osorto, 995 F.3d at 820–22. And the court was permitted
        to consider and give weight to his prior convictions and sentences
        when evaluating the § 3553(a) factors more broadly. See Rosales-
        Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1261 (“District courts have broad leeway in de-
        ciding how much weight to give to prior crimes the defendant has
        committed.”). That the 42-month sentence was both below the
        guideline range and well below the statutory maximum of 20 years
        further supports the reasonableness of the sentence. See 8 U.S.C.
        § 1326(b)(2); Osorto, 995 F.3d at 823 (citing these factors as indica-
        tors of reasonableness).
               Finally, we are not persuaded by Bonilla-Diaz’s claim that
        the district court effectively treated the Texas court’s prior 24-
        month sentence for illegal reentry as a “floor” for his current sen-
        tence. While the court stated it would not be “appropriate” to give
        him less time than the 24-month sentence, the court did not em-
        phasize the Texas court’s sentence or otherwise appear to substi-
        tute that court’s judgment for its own. Rather, the record reflects
        that the court made an independent judgment that a sentence
        closer to the guideline range in this case, 46 to 57 months, was ap-
        propriate based on the facts of the case and the § 3553(a) factors.
        And for the reasons we just explained, the court’s decision to im-
        pose a 42-month sentence was not outside the range of
USCA11 Case: 21-13223   Document: 41-1   Date Filed: 01/05/2023   Page: 10 of 10

        10                  Opinion of the Court             21-13223

        reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances.   See
        Osorto, 995 F.3d at 822.
              AFFIRMED.