Court Opinion

ID: 9898873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 16:01:25.441188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:48.404552
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11652    Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 11/15/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11652
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       RIGOBERTO MARTINEZ-FLORES,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 9:22-cr-80182-AMC-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11652          Document: 31-1          Date Filed: 11/15/2023           Page: 2 of 7

       2                           Opinion of the Court                         23-11652

       Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Rigoberto Martinez-Flores appeals his total sentence of 24
       months’ imprisonment with three years of supervised release for
       illegal entry into the United States after deportation. Martinez-Flo-
       res argues that his above-guidelines sentence was procedurally er-
       roneous and substantively unreasonable. He argues that the dis-
       trict court procedurally erred by not adequately explaining its sen-
       tence and by failing to properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
       factors. He also argues that his sentence is substantively unreason-
       able because the court focused only on deterrence and ignored
       other relevant sentencing factors.1
              The Supreme Court has instructed that an appellate court
       reviewing a sentence must first ensure that there are no procedural
       errors and then consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness.
       Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We will therefore

       1 We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion, which includes

       checking for both procedural error and substantive reasonableness. United States v.
       Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1321–22 (11th Cir. 2008). The party challenging a sentence
       bears the burden of showing that the sentence is unreasonable. Id. at 1322. Where a
       defendant challenges a sentence on procedural grounds based on the adequacy of the
       district court’s explanation, we review de novo, even in the absence of a timely ob-
       jection at sentencing. See United States v. Oudomsine, 57 F.4th 1262, 1265 (11th Cir.
       2023); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2).
USCA11 Case: 23-11652      Document: 31-1       Date Filed: 11/15/2023     Page: 3 of 7

       23-11652                Opinion of the Court                          3

       address Martinez-Flores’s arguments in that order. For the reasons
       that follow, we affirm the district court’s sentence.
                                          I
                 To determine whether a district court committed a proce-
       dural error in sentencing a defendant, this Court asks, as relevant
       here, if the district court “fail[ed] to consider the § 3553(a) factors,
       . . . or fail[ed] to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including
       an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Id.
       Martinez-Flores argues that the district court erred in both re-
       spects. We disagree.
               While a district court must “set forth enough” explanation
       in its sentencing decision “to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has
       considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for ex-
       ercising [its] own legal decision-making authority,” Rita v. United
       States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007), the explanation doesn’t need to be
       a specific “length and amount of detail.” United States v. Ghertler,
       605 F.3d 1256, 1262 (11th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, the district
       court doesn’t need to state that it has explicitly considered each §
       3553(a) factor individually. United States v. Ortez-Delgado, 451 F.3d
       752, 758 (11th Cir. 2006).
              Here, the district court did not commit procedural error be-
       cause it adequately explained its upward variance and application
       of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. To start, the district court artic-
       ulated that it had carefully considered the record “and the statutory
       factors set forth in 3553(a).” The district court also stated that it
       “considered the statements of all parties” and found that “a
USCA11 Case: 23-11652      Document: 31-1       Date Filed: 11/15/2023     Page: 4 of 7

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  23-11652

       guideline sentence [was] insufficient in this case.” Finally, the dis-
       trict court noted that Martinez-Flores’s immigration history (in-
       cluding a prior conviction for illegal reentry that resulted in a 15-
       month sentence), his criminal history, and the apparent lack of de-
       terrence provided “ample basis” to vary upward. These explana-
       tions are sufficient to allow this Court to “engage in the meaningful
       review envisioned by the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v.
       Parks, 823 F.3d 990, 997 (11th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). We
       hold, therefore, that there was no procedural error.
                                          II
              On substantive-reasonableness review, we may vacate the
       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” to arrive at an unreasonable sen-
       tence based on the facts of the case. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d
       1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citation omitted). A district
       court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to consider relevant fac-
       tors that were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to
       an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of
       judgment in considering the proper factors. Id. at 1189 (quotation
       marks and citation omitted). We consider whether a sentence is
       substantively unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances
       and in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Williams, 526 F.3d at
       1322. While the district court is required to evaluate all the
       § 3553(a) factors, the weight it gives to each factor is within its dis-
       cretion. United States v. Ramirez-Gonzalez, 755 F.3d 1267, 1272–73
USCA11 Case: 23-11652      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 11/15/2023     Page: 5 of 7

       23-11652               Opinion of the Court                         5

       (11th Cir. 2014). The district court has discretion to attach greater
       weight to one factor over another. United States v. Rosales-Bruno,
       789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015). Unjustified reliance on any
       one of the § 3553(a) factors may be indicative of an unreasonable
       sentence. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008).
       But imposition of a sentence well below the statutory maximum
       penalty is an indicator of reasonableness. United States v. Croteau,
       819 F.3d 1293, 1310 (11th Cir. 2016).
               The factors the district court must consider include the na-
       ture and circumstances of the offense and the history and charac-
       teristics of the defendant; the need for the sentence imposed to re-
       flect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,
       and to provide just punishment for the offense as well as to afford
       specific and general deterrence; and the need to avoid unwarranted
       sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who
       have been found guilty of similar conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
       While the district court should consider and properly calculate the
       advisory guidelines range, it is permitted to give greater weight to
       other § 3553(a) factors. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1259. The district
       court may also “consider facts that were taken into account when
       formulating the guideline range for the sake of a variance.” United
       States v. Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation
       omitted).
              While a district court must consider the § 3553(a) factors in
       determining a sentence, it is not required to state in its explanation
       that it has evaluated each factor individually. Ortiz-Delgado, 451
USCA11 Case: 23-11652      Document: 31-1       Date Filed: 11/15/2023     Page: 6 of 7

       6                       Opinion of the Court                  23-11652

       F.3d at 758. An acknowledgment by the district court that it has
       considered the § 3553(a) factors is sufficient. United States v. Turner,
       474 F.3d 1265, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007). A court selecting a sentence
       outside the guidelines must have a justification “sufficiently com-
       pelling to support the degree of variation.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.
       The justification for a variance must also be adequately explained
       to “allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the per-
       ception of fair sentencing.” Id. In general, the further a sentence
       falls outside the guideline range, the more compelling the court’s
       explanation must be. Id. Ultimately, the court must explain the
       sentence with enough detail to satisfy the appellate court that it has
       considered the arguments of the parties and has a reasoned basis
       for its decision. Rita, 551 U.S. at 356.
              The district court’s sentence here is substantively reasonable
       because it properly weighed the § 3553(a) factors when it found
       that Martinez-Flores should receive an upward variance due to his
       prior deportations and conviction for illegal entry as well as his
       criminal history. As noted above, the district court stated that, in
       determining the appropriate sentence, it considered the § 3553(a)
       factors. Further proof of the district court’s consideration is its dis-
       cussion of Martinez-Flores’s immigration and criminal history.
       That discussion evidences the district court’s consideration of the
       “nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and char-
       acteristics of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Martinez-Flo-
       res’s contention that the district court “focused solely on deter-
       rence” is without merit. And though he argues that the district
       court didn’t consider sentence disparity, our case law indicates that
USCA11 Case: 23-11652         Document: 31-1         Date Filed: 11/15/2023         Page: 7 of 7

       23-11652                   Opinion of the Court                                7

       the district court didn’t have to state specifically that it considered
       that factor so long as it stated that it considered all the factors. As
       already explained, the district court did so. And even if it weighed
       the deterrence factor more heavily, we cannot say that it abused its
       discretion in doing so. 2 Finally, the fact that Martinez-Flores’s 24-
       month sentence is substantially lower than the statutory maximum
       sentence of 10 years is evidence of reasonableness. See 8 U.S.C. §§
       1326(a), (b)(1). Under the totality of the circumstances, we hold
       that the sentence is substantively reasonable.
               Because there was no procedural error in the district court’s
       sentencing of Martinez-Flores, and because the sentence is substan-
       tively reasonable, we AFFIRM the district court’s sentence.

       AFFIRMED.

       2 It is unsurprising that a district court would consider deterrence more heavily

       here, given (1) that Martinez-Flores had been removed on four previous occa-
       sions and (2) that a 15-month prison sentence imposed as part of one of those
       removals seemed not to have deterred him from reentering illegally.