Court Opinion

ID: 9407913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 19:01:05.848963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.865215
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10287    Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 07/10/2023   Page: 1 of 11

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-10287
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        EDWIN ALAN DOMINGUEZ-GARCIA,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-00243-MLB-CMS-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10287       Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 07/10/2023      Page: 2 of 11

        2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10287

        Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
              The District Court for the Northern District of Georgia sen-
        tenced Edwin Dominguez-Garcia to 18 months in prison for illegal
        reentry. Dominguez-Garcia appeals that sentence, arguing it was
        substantively unreasonable because the District Court improperly
        weighed the sentencing factors, failed to consider his mitigating
        personal history, and failed to sufficiently justify its sentence at the
        high end of the guideline range. Finding no error, we affirm.
                                           I.
              On July 13, 2022, a grand jury in the Northern District of
        Georgia indicted Edwin Dominguez-Garcia on one count of illegal
        entry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
        Dominguez-Garcia pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.
               According to the presentence investigation report (the
        “PSR”), Dominguez-Garcia was convicted of possession of drug-
        related objects in Georgia in 2014 and was scheduled to be re-
        moved. He was arrested for driving with a suspended license in
        2015, and he was removed from the United States on December
        10, 2015. He reentered the United States twice in 2016, twice in
        2017, and once in 2019. In June 2022, immigration agents encoun-
        tered Dominguez-Garcia in Georgia at the Gwinnett County Jail,
        where he had been detained due to an active probation violation
        warrant.
USCA11 Case: 23-10287      Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 07/10/2023     Page: 3 of 11

        23-10287               Opinion of the Court                        3

               Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, the base offense level for a vi-
        olation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) is eight. The probation officer then
        assessed a four-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(3)(D) be-
        cause before Dominguez-Garcia was ordered removed from the
        United States for the first time, he had a felony conviction for pos-
        session of methamphetamine. The probation officer also awarded
        a two-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G.
        § 3E1.1(a). Dominguez-Garcia’s total offense level was ten.
               In calculating Dominguez-Garcia’s criminal history, the PSR
        reported multiple prior criminal convictions in Georgia state court.
        These included: driving without a valid license, possession and use
        of drug related objects, driving with a suspended or revoked li-
        cense, possession of methamphetamine, and loitering.
        Dominguez-Garcia also has a prior conviction for illegal entry in
        the Southern District of Texas. These convictions resulted in a sub-
        total criminal history score of five. The probation officer assessed
        two additional points because Dominguez-Garcia committed the
        instant offense while on probation for his conviction for possession
        of methamphetamine. Dominguez-Garcia’s total criminal history
        score, then, was seven, leading to a criminal history category of IV.
             A total offense level of ten and a criminal history category of
        IV correspond to a guideline range of 15 to 21 months’
USCA11 Case: 23-10287       Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 07/10/2023      Page: 4 of 11

        4                       Opinion of the Court                   23-10287

        imprisonment. 1 The PSR also noted that the statutory maximum
        was two years’ imprisonment.
               In addition, the PSR discussed facts regarding Dominguez-
        Garcia that the probation officer thought the District Court would
        find relevant in fashioning its sentence. For example, Dominguez-
        Garcia had been married for six years and his wife resided in Cali-
        fornia. Dominguez-Garcia and his wife had three children to-
        gether, all United States citizens, and Dominguez-Garcia commu-
        nicated with them daily. Dominguez-Garcia was employed as an
        electrician before his arrest. He also served in the Mexican military
        as a Marine.
               Dominguez-Garcia filed a sentencing memorandum. He re-
        quested that he be given credit for the time he spent in state and
        immigration custody, and that he be given a sentence of time
        served since he had been in custody for more than seven months.
        According to Dominguez-Garcia, time served was sufficient given
        the time he had already spent away from his wife and children, as
        well as his background in the Mexican Marines and work as an elec-
        trician.
               At the sentencing hearing, neither the government nor
        Dominguez-Garcia objected to the calculation of the advisory
        guidelines or the potential sentence. The Court adopted both the
        guideline calculation and the factual findings in the PSR. The

        1 Dominguez-Garcia acknowledges that 15 to 21 months is the proper guide-
        line range.
USCA11 Case: 23-10287       Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 07/10/2023      Page: 5 of 11

        23-10287                 Opinion of the Court                          5

        District Court stated that it had read all the materials provided to
        it, explicitly stating that it had “read the defendant’s sentencing
        memorandum.” The Court also stated that it had considered all
        the § 3553(a) factors.
               According to the District Court, several things “stuck out”
        in considering the § 3553(a) factors. The Court noted that
        Dominguez-Garcia’s criminal history was significant and—in addi-
        tion to his previous convictions—it included multiple arrests, fail-
        ures to appear, and probation violations. The Court said that, in
        addition to his criminal history, Dominguez-Garcia had “seven
        prior deportations, two failures to appear and probation violations.
        That makes me think he has little regard for the law and that there
        needs to be deterrence.” Sent’g Hr’g Tr., Doc. 28 at 5–6. The
        Court continued to say:
                I do think the history and characteristics of the de-
                fendant weight against the defendant. I do think that
                while it’s not the most serious offense . . . I think that
                there does need to be respect for the law, punish-
                ment, [and] deterrence[;] those are the things that I
                think push it, not the seriousness of the offense as
                much or the need to protect the public or to provide
                education.
        Id. at 9.
              The government argued for a 20-month sentence to pro-
        mote respect for the law and based on the nature and characteris-
        tics of the defendant. The government pointed out that
USCA11 Case: 23-10287     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 07/10/2023   Page: 6 of 11

        6                     Opinion of the Court               23-10287

        Dominguez-Garcia came back almost immediately after being de-
        ported the first time and that he returned over and over again,
        showing no respect for the law. According to the government,
        Dominguez-Garcia was not someone who came to the United
        States to work and become a full citizen; he was someone who
        came to the United States and repeatedly committed crimes. The
        government did note that Dominguez-Garcia pleaded guilty im-
        mediately, which saved prosecutorial resources. The government
        also requested a year of supervised release as a deterrent because
        Dominguez-Garcia’s wife and children were in the United States,
        which gave him a reason to return.
               Dominguez-Garcia’s attorney argued that Dominguez-Gar-
        cia was not the kind of offender who should be sentenced close to
        the statutory maximum of two years. He came to the United States
        to work and to be with his family. According to the attorney,
        Dominguez-Garcia’s criminal history was not as significant as oth-
        ers. The attorney also argued that Dominguez-Garcia’s history and
        characteristics weighed towards mitigating the sentence. For ex-
        ample, Dominguez-Garcia came to this country to work and sup-
        port his family. Post-release, Dominguez-Garcia intended to stay
        with family in Mexico and await his wife and children, who plan to
        relocate to another country. The attorney continued by arguing
        that Dominguez-Garcia had been in custody since May 20, 2022,
        and that being away from his wife and family for that
USCA11 Case: 23-10287      Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 07/10/2023     Page: 7 of 11

        23-10287               Opinion of the Court                          7

        extraordinarily long time served as an adequate deterrence. 2 The
        attorney requested a sentence of time served.
                The District Court then imposed its sentence, stating that it
        had considered the § 3553(a) factors. The Court explained that it
        did not believe Dominguez-Garcia would remain outside of the
        United States or move his family to another country. The Court
        also found that Dominguez-Garcia’s criminal history was not less
        significant than other people charged with a similar offense and a
        sentence of 20 months would not create a sentencing disparity.
        The Court sentenced Dominguez-Garcia to 18 months’ imprison-
        ment—the middle of the guideline range—followed by one year of
        supervised release. 3 Dominguez-Garcia objected to the substan-
        tive reasonableness of the sentence. He timely appealed.
                On appeal, Dominguez-Garcia argues that the District
        Court’s sentence was substantively unreasonable because the
        Court improperly weighed the sentencing factors, failed to con-
        sider the defendant’s mitigating personal history, and did not offer
        sufficient justification for the sentence.
                                          II.

        2The sentencing hearing was held on January 9, 2023, meaning that
        Dominguez-Garcia had been in custody for approximately seven and a half
        months.
        3We assume that Dominguez-Garcia would also be deported while on super-
        vised release.
USCA11 Case: 23-10287       Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 07/10/2023     Page: 8 of 11

        8                       Opinion of the Court                   23-10287

               When reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we consider
        the totality of the circumstances under a deferential abuse-of-dis-
        cretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586,
        597 (2007). The party challenging the sentence bears the burden
        of establishing that it is unreasonable based on the facts of the case
        and the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378
        (11th Cir. 2010). We do not apply a presumption of reasonableness
        to sentences within the guideline range, but we ordinarily expect
        such a sentence to be reasonable. United States v. Stanley, 739 F.3d
        633, 656 (11th Cir. 2014).
               A district court abuses its discretion when it “(1) fails to af-
        ford consideration to relevant factors that were due signiﬁcant
        weight, (2) gives signiﬁcant weight to an improper or irrelevant fac-
        tor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the
        proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir.
        2010) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted). The proper factors are
        set out in § 3553(a) and include the nature and circumstances of the
        oﬀense, the personal history and characteristics of the defendant,
        the seriousness of the crime, the promotion of respect for the law,
        just punishment, and adequate deterrence.                 18 U.S.C.
        § 3553(a)(1)-(2).
                A district court is not required to state on the record that it
        has explicitly considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss
        each of the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d
        1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2013). It is enough that the record reﬂects the
        district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. United States
USCA11 Case: 23-10287      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 07/10/2023     Page: 9 of 11

        23-10287               Opinion of the Court                         9

        v. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d 567, 609 (11th Cir. 2020). And a failure
        to discuss mitigating evidence does not indicate that the court “er-
        roneously ignored or failed to consider this evidence.” United States
        v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omit-
        ted).
                We have “underscored” that we must give “due deference”
        to the district court to consider and weigh the proper sentencing
        factors. United States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d 1204, 1224 (11th Cir.
        2018) (quotation marks omitted). The district court does not have
        to give all the factors equal weight and is given discretion to attach
        great weight to one factor over another. United States v.
        Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015). This discretion
        is particularly pronounced when weighing criminal history. United
        States v. Riley, 995 F.3d 1272, 1279 (11th Cir. 2021). We will vacate
        a sentence only if we are “left with the deﬁnite and ﬁrm conviction
        that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in
        weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies
        outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of
        the case.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190 (quotation marks omitted).
               Here, Dominguez-Garcia’s sentence was substantively rea-
        sonable. The District Court has broad discretion when weighing
        the § 3553(a) factors and may weigh one factor more heavily than
        another, especially when looking at criminal history. Rosales-Bruno,
        789 F.3d at 1254; Riley, 995 F.3d at 1279. The District Court reason-
        ably weighed Dominguez-Garcia’s history of reentry, failure to ap-
        pear, probation violations, and prior drug oﬀense against his
USCA11 Case: 23-10287      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 07/10/2023     Page: 10 of 11

        10                     Opinion of the Court                  23-10287

        family’s presence in the United States, his work in the Mexican Ma-
        rines and as an electrician, and his decision to plead guilty when
        concluding that a sentence in the middle of the guideline range was
        appropriate. While the Court may have weighed the nature and
        circumstance of the oﬀense, promotion of respect for the law, and
        adequate deterrence more heavily than it did Dominguez-Garcia’s
        personal history and characteristics, that was within the Court’s
        power. See Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254.
                Nothing in the record indicates that the Court failed to con-
        sider Dominguez-Garcia’s mitigating personal history—it just
        didn’t give it as much weight as the defendant would have liked. It
        is true that the District Court did not directly state that it had con-
        sidered that evidence. But it didn’t need to. See Amedeo, 487 F.3d at
        833. The Court explicitly said that it had read Dominguez-Garcia’s
        sentencing memorandum. It said that it had taken all the testi-
        mony at the sentencing hearing into consideration and had given
        thought to all of the § 3553(a) factors.
               The District Court gave more than suﬃcient justiﬁcation for
        its sentence. It discussed at length Dominguez-Garcia’s criminal
        history, the number of times he had illegally entered the country
        and then been deported, and its belief that a lenient sentence would
        not deter him from doing so again in the future. It also explained
        exactly which of the § 3553(a) factors it found to be the most im-
        portant.
USCA11 Case: 23-10287    Document: 23-1    Date Filed: 07/10/2023   Page: 11 of 11

        23-10287             Opinion of the Court                    11

              We can hardly say that we are left with a “deﬁnite and ﬁrm
        conviction” that the District Court committed an error of judg-
        ment. Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190. Accordingly, we aﬃrm.
              AFFIRMED.