United States v. Casimiro Carranza-Martinez

Case: 17-14954 Date Filed: 06/13/2018 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-14954 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CASIMIRO CARRANZA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (June 13, 2018) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-14954 Date Filed: 06/13/2018 Page: 2 of 6 Casimiro Carranza-Martinez appeals his 36-month sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry of a previously deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). This was Carranza’s fourth conviction for illegally reentering the United States. And he has been removed a total of six times since 2006. In light of this history, the district court upwardly varied from the guideline range of 21 to 27 months. On appeal, Carranza argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the court relied solely on deterrence and did not give him credit for the two months he spent in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody before being brought to federal court for his initial appearance. After careful review, we affirm. We review a sentence for reasonableness, which “merely asks whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007). Ordinarily, we examine both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Here, however, Carranza challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence only. We examine whether the sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888, 892 (11th Cir. 2014). The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes” listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), including 2 Case: 17-14954 Date Filed: 06/13/2018 Page: 3 of 6 the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2); see United States. v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1196 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The court must also consider, among other factors, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (6). The district court must consider all of these factors but it may, in its discretion, give greater weight to some factors over others. United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015). The court enjoys “substantial,” but not unfettered, discretion. Id. at 1255. A court abuses its discretion if it “(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors 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 ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals