United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3203 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Alejandro Acosta, also known as Alex lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: April 17, 2020 Filed: July 20, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Upon his release from prison in July 2014, Alejandro Acosta began a five-year term of supervised release originating from his conviction on drug conspiracy and firearm charges. On February 13, 2015, Acosta, a permanent resident of the United States, contacted his probation officer in Iowa and advised his officer that he had been summoned to a meeting with an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer on February 16, 2015. Fearing that he would be deported to Mexico, Acosta did not report to the ICE meeting. On March 19, 2015, Acosta telephoned his probation officer and acknowledged that he failed to appear for the ICE interview and advised that he was residing in Mexico. He had no further contact with probation officers for the next four and one-half years and his whereabouts were unknown. In September 2019, Acosta was arrested in Arizona after a traffic stop. Acosta’s supervised release was revoked after his admission of two supervised release violations: failure to notify probation of a residence change and failure to report as required to his probation officer. The parties agreed that the United States Sentencing Guidelines range for the two Grade “C” violations was 5 to 11 months. The United States recommended an upward variance to 24 months and Acosta recommended a within-Guidelines range sentence. The district court1 sentenced Acosta to a term of imprisonment of 24 months to be followed by a term of supervised release of five years. Acosta contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to give adequate weight to the fact that these are Acosta’s only violations of supervised release, he has committed no new law violations, and, when apprehended during the traffic stop, he possessed no drugs or firearms. He further asserts that the district court erred in giving significant weight to Acosta’s immigration status. “We review the reasonableness of [a] revocation sentence for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Asalati, 615 F.3d 1001, 1006 (8th Cir. 2010). In reviewing a sentence, we take “into account the totality of the circumstances.” Gall 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. -2- v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). A court abuses its discretion if it “(1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits a clear error of judgment.” Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals