FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2019 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 19-3037 (D.C. No. 6:18-CR-10115-JWB-1) JULIO CASTANDEDA-RUIZ, (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before LUCERO, O’BRIEN, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Julio Castandeda-Ruiz challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I Castandeda-Ruiz pled guilty to one count of felony illegal reentry of a previously removed or deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). His * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. presentence investigation report (“PSR”), listed a total offense level of 6 and a criminal history category of I, resulting in an advisory Guidelines range of 0 to 6 months’ imprisonment. The PSR also noted Castandeda-Ruiz was convicted of misdemeanor illegal reentry in 2017 and had illegally entered the United States on eight occasions between 2005 and 2016. Neither the government nor Castandeda-Ruiz objected to the PSR. The district court accepted the PSR’s calculations as correct but advised the parties it was considering an upward variance because Castandeda-Ruiz had “unlawfully entered the United States ten times.” Both the government and defense counsel requested Castandeda-Ruiz, who had been in custody for seven months, be sentenced to time served. The district court considered the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and announced a tentative sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment as follows: [The] Court’s required pursuant to [§] 3553(a) to impose a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing identified in that statute. . . . [T]he Court has considered the . . . Guidelines which promote uniformity in sentencing and assists the Court in determining an appropriate sentence by weighing the basic nature of the offense, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors. .... [The] Court . . . notes that this defendant has at least ten separate occurrences of being removed from the United States, counting this offense, within the last 13 years. It is this Court’s opinion that the defendant has failed to understand the severity of his conduct as demonstrated by his continual disregard of the laws of the United States applicable to entering into this country. In enumerating a little more precisely the sentencing factors under [§] 3553, I find that the defendant’s criminal history does not reflect the 2 presence of these other unlawful ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals