Court Opinion

ID: 9881741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 20:00:50.605802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:14:23.195173
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13392    Document: 18-1     Date Filed: 10/03/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13392
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       JOSE TORRES-MENDOZA,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 7:22-cr-00020-HL-TQL-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13392       Document: 18-1           Date Filed: 10/03/2023   Page: 2 of 5

       2                       Opinion of the Court                     22-13392

       Before NEWSOM, BRANCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Appellant Jose Torres-Mendoza, proceeding with counsel,
       appeals the district court’s imposition of a 24-month sentence for
       his illegal reentry into the United States. On appeal, he argues that
       the district court abused its discretion by imposing an upward var-
       iance and sentencing him to the statutory maximum term of im-
       prisonment. Having read the parties’ briefs and reviewed the rec-
       ord, we affirm Torres-Mendoza’s sentence.
                                                I.
              We deferentially review the reasonableness of a sentence for
       abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct.
       586, 597 (2007). To preserve an objection for appeal, a defendant
       must articulate a specific objection during sentencing, or we review
       the alleged error for plain error. United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d
       1084, 1087-88 (11th Cir. 2003). To prevail under plain error review,
       a defendant must show (1) an error, (2) that is plain, (3) and that
       affected his substantial rights. United States v. Iriele, 977 F.3d 1155,
       1177 (11th Cir. 2020). If he makes that showing, we may address
       the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public rep-
       utation of judicial proceedings. Id.
                                          II.
             We first review whether there was any substantial proce-
       dural error at sentencing, including the district court’s failure to
USCA11 Case: 22-13392      Document: 18-1      Date Filed: 10/03/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       22-13392                Opinion of the Court                         3

       consult the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, its reliance on clearly erro-
       neous facts, or its failure to sufficiently explain the sentence. Gall,
       552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597. A sentencing court must state the
       specific reasons for its imposition of an upward variance both at the
       time of sentencing and in its statement of reasons. 18 U.S.C. §
       3553(c)(2). If a court imposes a substantial upward variance, it
       must provide a more significant justification than required for a mi-
       nor variance and must adequately explain the chosen sentence to
       allow for meaningful appellate review. Gall, 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S.
       Ct. at 597.
              Courts must consider several sentencing factors, including
       the nature of the offense and the defendant’s character and history,
       and the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of
       the offense, punish the defendant, and deter crime. § 3553(a).
       While courts must be guided by the § 3553(a) factors, they need not
       explicitly state that they considered each factor. United States v.
       Thomas, 446 F.3d 1348, 1357 (11th Cir. 2006). An acknowledge-
       ment that the court considered the factors is sufficient. United
       States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007). A court may
       attach great weight to one factor over others. United States v.
       Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2014).
              We review substantive reasonableness for abuse of discre-
       tion and will not vacate a sentence as substantively unreasonable
       unless we have a firm conviction that the court clearly erred in con-
       sidering the § 3553(a) factors by imposing a sentence beyond the
       range of sentences that would be reasonable given the facts of the
USCA11 Case: 22-13392      Document: 18-1       Date Filed: 10/03/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13392

       case. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597; United States v. Riley,
       995 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir. 2021). A court abuses its discretion
       if it does not consider relevant factors due substantial weight, sig-
       nificantly weighs an irrelevant or improper factor, or errs in its
       judgment in its consideration of sentencing factors. United States
       v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
                                             III.
               As an initial matter, Torres-Mendoza’s procedural reasona-
       bleness arguments are subject to plain error review because he did
       not object to the procedural reasonableness of his sentencing be-
       low. Regardless, he has not shown even preserved error. The dis-
       trict court sufficiently explained its sentence and indicated that it
       considered the § 3553(a) factors. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S. Ct.
       at 597; Turner, 474 F.3d at 1281.
               Further, the district court was within its discretion to con-
       sider his prior illegal reentries and to weigh them more strongly
       than the nature of his current offense and the guideline range. See
       § 3553(a); Dougherty, 754 F.3d at 1361. The record reveals that the
       district court, in selecting the above-Guidelines sentence, consid-
       ered the § 3553(a) factors and attached more weight to two in par-
       ticular: (1) the history and characteristics of Torres-Mendoza; and
       (2) the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.
       The district court noted that this offense was Torres-Mendoza’s
       fifty attempt to enter the United States illegally. The district court’s
       decision to treat Torres-Mendoza’s four previous illegal entries as
       indicative of recidivist tendencies demonstrates that Torres-
USCA11 Case: 22-13392     Document: 18-1      Date Filed: 10/03/2023    Page: 5 of 5

       22-13392               Opinion of the Court                        5

       Mendoza needed a more severe sentence to promote respect for
       the law and to deter further unlawful conduct. We conclude that
       the district court’s justification for the upward variance was suffi-
       ciently compelling and the reasoning for the variance is supported
       by the record. Thus, we affirm the district court’s imposition of
       the 24-month sentence.
             AFFIRMED.