Court Opinion

ID: 9393971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 19:01:10.228481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:56.554930
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12631    Document: 46-1     Date Filed: 05/11/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12631
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       ERNESTO PEREZ-PINA,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cr-14020-AMC-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12631     Document: 46-1     Date Filed: 05/11/2023    Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-12631

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Ernesto Perez-Pina, a Mexican citizen, appeals following his
       conviction and 18-month sentence for one count of unlawful
       reentry of a previously removed alien. He had previously been re-
       moved from the United States four times and had been charged and
       convicted with misdemeanor improper entry by an alien three
       times.
              On appeal, Perez-Pina challenges his above-guideline-range
       sentence two ways. Procedurally, he asserts that the district court
       offered an insufficient explanation for its upward variance. Sub-
       stantively, he contends that the district court put unreasonable
       weight on his prior reentry offenses and that a within-guideline-
       range sentence would have satisfied the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
       because the guideline calculations already accounted for those of-
       fenses.
              We review a sentence imposed after a variance under a def-
       erential abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gall v. United States,
       552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
              “To be upheld on appeal, a sentence must be both procedur-
       ally and substantively reasonable.” United States v. Green, 981
       F.3d 945, 953 (11th Cir. 2020). Procedural errors include failing to
       calculate (or improperly calculating) the guideline range, treating
       the guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a)
USCA11 Case: 22-12631      Document: 46-1       Date Filed: 05/11/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       22-12631                Opinion of the Court                          3

       factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or
       failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an ex-
       planation for any deviation from the guideline range. See United
       States v. Trailer, 827 F.3d 933, 935–36 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam).
               The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but
       not greater than necessary” to comply with the purposes of
       18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These purposes include
       the need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
       promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, deter crim-
       inal conduct, and protect the public from future criminal conduct.
       Id. § 3553(a)(2). Additional considerations include the nature and
       circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the
       defendant, the applicable guideline range, the need to avoid unwar-
       ranted sentence disparities among similarly situated defendants,
       and the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission.
       Id. § 3553(a). The weight due each § 3553(a) factor lies within the
       district court’s sound discretion, and we will not substitute our
       judgment for that of the district court. United States v. Joseph, 978
       F.3d 1251, 1266 (11th Cir. 2020). However, a district court can
       abuse its discretion when it (1) fails to consider relevant factors that
       were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an im-
       proper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment
       by balancing the proper factors unreasonably. United States v.
       Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1326–27 (11th Cir. 2013). Nevertheless, a
       district court may reasonably attach great weight to a single factor.
       Id. at 1327.
USCA11 Case: 22-12631         Document: 46-1         Date Filed: 05/11/2023         Page: 4 of 6

       4                          Opinion of the Court                       22-12631

               Upward variances are imposed based upon the § 3553(a) fac-
       tors. See, e.g., United States v. Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627,
       637–38 (11th Cir. 2013). A major variance requires a more signifi-
       cant justification than a minor variance—the requirement is that
       the justification be “sufficiently compelling to support the degree
       of the variance.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1196 (11th
       Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50). The appellate
       courts may consider the extent of the variance but must give due
       deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors
       justify the extent of the variance. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. While a
       sufficiently compelling justification for the variance must exist, the
       district court does not have to provide an extraordinary justifica-
       tion for the variance. Id. at 47.
              Perez-Pina claims that the district court’s explanation for the
       upward variance—the need for deterrence and Perez-Pina’s re-
       peated reentry offenses 1—was insufficient. Perez-Pina seems to ar-
       gue that because these offenses were already incorporated into the
       guidelines, they cannot serve as the basis for a variance. But our
       precedents say otherwise: The district court may impose a

       1 In the district court’s words: “I would note in addition, those prior convic-
       tions, they escalated in punishment from 30 days to 60 days and then to 120
       days; again, the message obviously wasn’t sufficient to deter more illegal reen-
       tries as indicated in the PSI. So for those reasons, in light of the need to pro-
       mote the respect for the law, to provide just punishment, and to specifically
       deter this defendant from continuing to violate the law, the Court believes
       under the 3553(a) factors that an upward variance is warranted and quite rea-
       sonable in this case, based on a review of the full record.” Doc. 46 at 10–11.
USCA11 Case: 22-12631      Document: 46-1      Date Filed: 05/11/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       22-12631                Opinion of the Court                         5

       variance if it concludes that the guideline range—which incorpo-
       rates the defendant’s criminal history—was insufficient in light of
       that same criminal history. United States v. Sanchez, 586 F.3d 918,
       936 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Osorio-Moreno, 814 F.3d
       1282, 1288 (11th Cir. 2016); see also Overstreet, 713 F.3d at 639
       (“[A] district court can rely on factors in imposing a variance that it
       had already considered in imposing [a guideline] enhancement.”
       (alteration in original)). We have explicitly stated that “[d]istrict
       courts have broad leeway in deciding how much weight to give to
       prior crimes the defendant has committed.” United States v.
       Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1261 (11th Cir. 2015).
              Substantively, the district court did not abuse its discretion
       by putting weight on Perez-Pina’s criminal history due to his mul-
       tiple reentry offenses and his repeated prior reentries. 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a)(1); Overstreet, 713 F.3d at 637–38. Similarly, it reasona-
       bly concluded that his record of continuing to reoffend, even with
       increasing punishment, meant that a within-range sentence would
       not adequately deter more illegal reentries, promote respect for the
       law, or provide just punishment. See Sanchez, 586 F.3d at 936.
       Further, district courts have broad leeway in deciding how much
       weight to give to prior crimes the defendant has committed. See
       Rosales Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1261. Additionally, even if this Court
       would consider a different sentence to be more appropriate, it still
       will not set aside a sentence selected by the district court absent
       unreasonableness. See Irey, 612 F.3d at 1191. Finally, Perez-Pina’s
       18-month sentence is below the two-year or 24-month statutory
USCA11 Case: 22-12631    Document: 46-1     Date Filed: 05/11/2023   Page: 6 of 6

       6                     Opinion of the Court              22-12631

       maximum, which also indicates reasonableness. See United States
       v. Baldwin, 774 F.3d 711, 732 (11th Cir. 2014). Therefore, we af-
       firm.
             AFFIRMED.