Court Opinion

ID: 9915783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-08 17:00:33.891219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:10.164665
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-1445
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                      Plaintiff - Appellee

                                        v.

          Juan Antonio Tejeda-Quiroz, also known as Juan Tejeda-Villa

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
                                 ____________

                         Submitted: November 17, 2023
                            Filed: January 8, 2024
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Juan Antonio Tejeda-Quiroz pled guilty to unlawful reentry after deportation
for an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2).
The district court 1 sentenced Tejeda-Quiroz to a term of 42 months’ imprisonment,

      1
        The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
which was above Tejeda-Quiroz’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 24 to 30
months. Tejeda-Quiroz appeals, asserting the district court abused its discretion
when it placed too much weight on his criminal history and failed to provide an
adequate justification for the upward variance. We affirm.

       Tejeda-Quiroz, a citizen and national of Mexico, unlawfully entered the
United States in February 1997. According to his Presentence Investigation Report,
Tejeda-Quiroz was arrested for illegal entry in 1999. In 2001, Tejeda-Quiroz threw
a firebomb into a car occupied by his wife, causing the car to catch fire and explode.
He was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one
count of arson in Dallas County District Court, was given a deferred sentence of five
years’ probation, and was deported. Tejeda-Quiroz returned unlawfully to the
United States, and in 2002 was arrested for burglary of a vehicle in Dallas, Texas.
He was subsequently sentenced to a term of 180 days in jail.

        In 2006, Tejeda-Quiroz’s probation on the assault and arson convictions was
revoked and a sentence of six years and six months was imposed following his arrest
for illegal reentry into the United States. Tejeda-Quiroz was released from custody
in 2012, and administratively deported. Tejeda-Quiroz again unlawfully reentered
the United States and was arrested in 2018 in Douglas County, Kansas, for driving
under the influence. In that case, Tejeda-Quiroz’s then-girlfriend told the police that
Tejeda-Quiroz stopped the car after they had an argument about him driving
intoxicated with her sons in the car. Tejeda-Quiroz physically assaulted her and
drove off. He has an active warrant for failure to appear.

      In July 2021, Tejeda-Quiroz was arrested for driving without a valid license
and no insurance in Liberty, Missouri. An outstanding warrant for failure to appear
on these charges remains active. In February 2022, Tejeda-Quiroz was convicted in
municipal court in Olathe, Kansas, for driving without a license and inattentive
driving.

                                         -2-
        Tejeda-Quiroz once again came to the attention of law enforcement in April
2022, when at 2:30 a.m., he crashed into a marked police officer’s vehicle. Tejeda-
Quiroz was arrested for driving while intoxicated and possession of a controlled
substance. This encounter with law enforcement led to the unlawful reentry charge
in this case. On May 18, 2022, the Department of Homeland Security entered a final
order of removal against Tejeda-Quiroz. On March 1, 2023, the district court
sentenced Tejeda-Quiroz to 42 months’ imprisonment and 3 years of supervised
release.

      A district court may vary upward from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range by relying on factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Drew,
9 F.4th 718, 725 (8th Cir. 2021). At sentencing, the district court found an upward
variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was warranted due to
Tejeda-Quiroz’s prior criminal conduct, which demonstrated a need to protect the
public, to promote respect for the law, and to provide adequate deterrence. Tejeda-
Quiroz has been twice deported to Mexico, convicted of three crimes of violence in
the United States, arrested several other times in the United States, and repeatedly
returned unlawfully to the United States. When determining the sentence, a district
court may consider a defendant’s prior illegal reentries that were not prosecuted.
See United States v. Mejia-Perez, 635 F.3d 351, 353 (8th Cir. 2011) (noting
immigration history can provide “evidence of obvious incorrigibility”). Further, the
record indicates that prior leniency has been ineffective, as Tejeda-Quiroz has not
been deterred from reentering the United States unlawfully or engaging in criminal
conduct while unlawfully in the United States.

      The record shows the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors, and
neither abused its wide sentencing discretion nor imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence. See Drew, 9 F.4th at 725-26 (rejecting argument that upward
variance was substantively unreasonable when the district court considered the
defendant’s earlier in-custody conduct, his criminal history, the timing of the
offense, the need for respect for the law, and public safety); United States v. Johnson,
916 F.3d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 2019) (noting the need for a sentence to afford adequate
                                          -3-
deterrence is a proper sentencing consideration); United States v. David, 682 F.3d
1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (stating factors already taken into account in calculating
the Sentencing Guidelines range may form the basis for a variance).

      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                     ______________________________

                                         -4-