Court Opinion

ID: 9946826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 16:00:55.557796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:41.245754
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-2105     Document: 010111008045      Date Filed: 03/01/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            March 1, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                         Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                             Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                         No. 23-2105
                                                   (D.C. No. 2:19-CR-00201-MIS-1)
  LEONARDO CARRILLO,                                           (D. N.M.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                     _________________________________

       Defendant Leonardo Carrillo challenges the substantive reasonableness of a

 twenty-four month revocation sentence that was imposed by the district court after

 Carrillo admitted to violating the terms of his supervised release by using controlled

 substances and absconding from a residential reentry center. Exercising jurisdiction

 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 23-2105    Document: 010111008045        Date Filed: 03/01/2024      Page: 2

                                             I

       In 2019, Carrillo pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to transport an

 illegal alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(i). Carrillo was sentenced to

 a term of imprisonment of twenty-four months, to be followed by a three-year term of

 supervised release. Carrillo completed his term of imprisonment and commenced his

 term of supervised release on May 5, 2022.

       On June 14, 2022, Carrillo’s probation officer filed a petition for revocation of

 Carrillo’s supervised release. The petition noted that one of the conditions of

 Carrillo’s supervised release was that he “must refrain from any unlawful use of a

 controlled substance.” ROA, Vol. I at 17. The petition alleged, however, that on

 June 3 and 13, 2022, Carrillo submitted to random drug tests at a residential reentry

 center and, on both occasions, admitted to using various illegal substances. The

 petition further noted that Carrillo was required, as a term of his supervised release,

 to “reside in a residential reentry center for a term of (up to) six months” and “must

 follow the rules and regulations of the center.” Id. According to the petition,

 however, on the evening of June 13, 2022, the staff at the residential reentry center

 “discovered [Carrillo] was not on the facility grounds” and “[f]urther investigation

 revealed [he] jumped over the fence and left the [center] without permission.” Id.

       On June 17, 2022, a separate federal criminal case, No. 22-CR-1960, was filed

 against Carrillo in the district court charging him with one count of escape from

 custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). That charge related to Carrillo’s escape

 from the residential reentry center on June 13, 2022.

                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-2105    Document: 010111008045       Date Filed: 03/01/2024    Page: 3

       On October 19, 2022, Carrillo’s probation officer filed an amended petition for

 revocation of Carrillo’s supervised release. The amended petition included the same

 information contained in the original petition but added the following additional

 information. To begin with, the amended petition noted that the terms of Carrillo’s

 supervised released required him to refrain from “commit[ting] another federal, state,

 or local crime.” Id. at 20. The amended petition in turn alleged that “[o]n June 13,

 2022, a Criminal Complaint was filed” in federal district court “charging [Carrillo]

 with 18 U.S.C. § 751(a): Escape from Custody,” and that the case “remain[ed]

 pending.” Id. at 20. The amended petition also alleged that on October 8, 2022,

 Carrillo “was arrested by deputies with the Dona Ana County Sheriff’s Office at his

 mother’s residence,” and that “[a] Criminal Complaint [was] filed in the Dona Ana

 County Magistrate Court charging [him] with Aggravated Assault of a Household

 Member with a Deadly Weapon, (a 4th degree felony punishable by 18 months

 custody), Battery Against a Household Member (misdemeanor), and Concealing

 Identity (misdemeanor).” Id.

       On December 1, 2022, Carrillo pleaded guilty to the escape from custody

 charge in Case No. 22-CR-1960.

       On May 31, 2023, Carrillo appeared before the district court and admitted to

 the violations alleged in the amended petition for revocation, with the exception of

 the allegation that Carrillo committed new criminal offenses for which he was

                                           3
Appellate Case: 23-2105    Document: 010111008045        Date Filed: 03/01/2024     Page: 4

 charged in federal and state court.1 In other words, Carrillo admitted that, shortly

 after beginning his term of supervised release, he violated the terms of his supervised

 release by using illegal substances and absconding from the residential reentry center.

       On June 28, 2023, the district court held a joint sentencing hearing for

 Carrillo’s escape from custody conviction and his supervised release violations. The

 district court sentenced Carrillo to a term of imprisonment of thirty months for the

 escape from custody conviction, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised

 release. As for the supervised release violations, the district court concluded that

 they were “Grade B violation[s],” and that Carrillo’s criminal history category was

 V, resulting in a Guidelines sentencing range of “12 to 18 months” and a “maximum

 term [of] 24 months.” ROA, Vol. III at 37. The district court announced that it

 intended “to vary” upward from the guideline range “to 24 months” due to “the

 nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the

 defendant.” Id. at 37–38. The district court explained that, regarding the nature and

 circumstances of the offense, Carrillo “abscond[ed] very quickly after his placement

 at the halfway house.” Id. at 38. As for Carrillo’s criminal history, the district court

 cited: (a) Carrillo’s “2001 theft conviction”; (b) his “2013 aggravated burglary

 conviction, where he broke into somebody’s house,” “beat the victim,” who had been

 sleeping, “and demanded the victim’s prescription medications”; (c) his “2015

 battery against a household member conviction”; (d) his 2018 “transporting”

       1
          The district court, acting pursuant to the government’s motion, dismissed the
 allegation regarding Carrillo committing new criminal offenses.
                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-2105     Document: 010111008045       Date Filed: 03/01/2024     Page: 5

 conviction, which involved “a high-speed chase”; (e) his “numerous writeups” and

 special-unit housing “while he was in the Bureau of Prisons”; and (f) his “numerous

 other contacts with law enforcement, some resulting in charges that were dismissed

 and some not, . . . span[ning] from 2013 to 2022.” Id. at 38–39. The district court

 concluded that “a Guideline sentence” would not “adequately deter” Carrillo, “given

 his criminal history and his behavior on supervised release where he absconded from

 the halfway house in about a month.” Id. at 39. The district court further concluded

 that “an upward variance [wa]s needed to protect the public from the defendant.” Id.

 The district court stated that the term of imprisonment imposed for the supervised

 release violations would “run consecutively to the sentence the Court just imposed in

 22-CR-1960.” Id. at 40. The district court also stated that no new term of supervised

 release would be imposed in connection with the sentence on the supervised release

 violations.

       Final judgment was entered in the case on June 28, 2023. Carrillo filed a

 timely notice of appeal.

                                            II

       On appeal, Carrillo argues that the revocation sentence imposed by the district

 court for the supervised release violations “is substantively unreasonable because it is

 not within the range of reasonable sentences when the relevant statutory factors are

 considered.” Aplt. Br. at 11. Carrillo argues in support that his “violations of

 supervised release are the direct result of his substance abuse disorder and his mental

 health issues.” Id. He in turn asserts that “[r]esolving [his] substance abuse problem

                                            5
Appellate Case: 23-2105    Document: 010111008045         Date Filed: 03/01/2024      Page: 6

 by getting him into effective substance abuse treatment is key to deterring any future

 criminal conduct from him” and “to the protection of the public.” Id. Carrillo asserts

 that “the need to provide him with substance abuse and mental health treatment,” as

 well as the “circumstances of [his] offense, his own characteristics and history, . . .

 and the need to deter criminal conduct and protect the public all suggest that his

 two-year prison sentence . . . is unwarrantedly harsh, especially for his first violation

 of supervised release.” Id. Lastly, Carrillo asserts that “by imposing the maximum

 sentence of confinement allowed by law, the [district] court did not give [him] any

 credit for fully accepting responsibility and acknowledging his addiction and mental

 health issues.” Id.

       “Substantive reasonableness focuses on the length of the sentence and requires

 that sentences be neither too long nor too short.” United States v. Walker, 844 F.3d

 1253, 1255 (10th Cir. 2017). “When reviewing a sentence for substantive

 reasonableness, we focus on ‘whether the length of the sentence is reasonable given

 all the circumstances of the case in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

 § 3553(a).’” United States v. Cookson, 922 F.3d 1079, 1091 (10th Cir. 2019)

 (quoting United States v. Friedman, 554 F.3d 1301, 1307 (10th Cir. 2009)). “A

 sentencing decision is substantively unreasonable if it ‘exceed[s] the bounds of

 permissible choice, given the facts and the applicable law.’” United States v. Chavez,

 723 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. McComb, 519 F.3d

 1049, 1053 (10th Cir. 2007)).

                                             6
Appellate Case: 23-2105     Document: 010111008045        Date Filed: 03/01/2024       Page: 7

       “We review substantive reasonableness for an abuse of discretion.” United

 States v. Williams, 10 F.4th 965, 977 (10th Cir. 2021). “We do not reweigh the

 sentencing factors but instead ask whether the sentence fell within the range of

 ‘rationally available choices that facts and the law at issue can fairly support.’”

 United States v. Blair, 933 F.3d 1271, 1274 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v.

 Martinez, 610 F.3d 1216, 1227 (10th Cir. 2010)). “[W]e will defer to the district

 court’s judgment so long as it falls within the realm of ... rationally available

 choices.” United States v. Durham, 902 F.3d 1180, 1236 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting

 McComb, 519 F.3d at 1053).

       Notably, the district court in this case addressed each of the § 3553(a) factors

 in explaining its decision to impose a twenty-four month sentence for the supervised

 release violations. The district court began by noting “the nature and circumstances

 of the offense,” in particular Carrillo’s “absconding very quickly after his placement

 at the halfway house.” ROA, Vol. III at 38. The district court in turn emphasized

 Carrillo’s extensive and sometimes violent criminal history, his ”numerous writeups”

 while in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, and his “numerous other contacts with

 law enforcement . . . span[ning] from 2013 to 2022.” Id. at 38–39. The district court

 then “consider[ed] the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence to

 criminal conduct” and concluded that “a Guideline sentence” would not “adequately

 deter . . . Carrillo, given his criminal history and his behavior on supervised release

 where he absconded from the halfway house in about a month.” Id. at 39. The

 district court also “consider[ed] the need to protect the public from further crimes of

                                             7
Appellate Case: 23-2105    Document: 010111008045         Date Filed: 03/01/2024    Page: 8

 the defendant and f[ound] an upward variance [wa]s needed to protect the public

 from the defendant.” Id. The district court “consider[ed] the need to provide”

 Carrillo “with treatment” and “recommend[ed] [a] 500 hours program” while Carrillo

 was incarcerated and also ordered “more treatment [during] his supervised release”

 from the escape from custody conviction. Id. The district court addressed “the kinds

 of sentences available in this case” and concluded that the presumption of

 reasonableness that is typically afforded to a Guideline range sentence was

 “overcome by the factors in this case,” including Carrillo’s “criminal history and

 behavior on supervised release, both in state court with his probation and here in

 federal court.” Id. As for “the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities

 among defendants with similar records,” the district court noted that it was “not sure

 there [wa]s a sentencing disparity, given . . . Carrillo’s lengthy and violent criminal

 history.” Id. at 39–40. The district court further stated that “if there [wa]s a

 sentencing disparity,” it was “warranted by the facts in this case, where he absconded

 so quickly after placement in the halfway house.” Id. at 40. Lastly, the district court

 noted there was “no restitution in this case, so [it was] not considering any need for

 restitution.” Id.

        We conclude there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court

 in imposing the twenty-four month sentence in this case. As the Supreme Court has

 noted, “[t]he sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their

 import under § 3553(a) in the individual case.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,

 51 (2007). And that is precisely what occurred here: the district court, after

                                             8
Appellate Case: 23-2105    Document: 010111008045         Date Filed: 03/01/2024   Page: 9

 considering all of the relevant statutory factors, concluded that a twenty-four month

 sentence was necessary to comply with all of the purposes of sentencing. Nothing in

 the record in this case persuades us that the district court exceeded the bounds of

 permissible choice in making its decision.

                                           III

       The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Mary Beck Briscoe
                                              Circuit Judge

                                              9