United States v. Edwin Velasquez Curuchiche

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 18a0089n.06 No. 17-5566 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Feb 23, 2018 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF EDWIN A. VELASQUEZ CURUCHICHE, ) TENNESSEE ) Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) BEFORE: SILER, BATCHELDER, and DONALD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Edwin A. Velasquez Curuchiche appeals his 600-month sentence for producing child pornography. As set forth below, we affirm Curuchiche’s sentence. Curuchiche pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to two counts of production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), which makes it a crime to produce a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct “if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer.” According to the presentence report, Curuchiche, a citizen of Guatemala residing in the United States illegally, befriended a family living near him. On two occasions, Curuchiche sneaked into the family’s home at night, touched and digitally penetrated the six-year-old daughter’s genitals, and made videos of that sexual conduct. Curuchiche’s total offense level of 42 and criminal history category of I corresponded to a guidelines range of 360 months to life, which was capped at No. 17-5566 United States v. Velasquez Curuchiche 720 months due to the 30-year statutory maximum for each count. See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e); USSG § 5G1.2(d). After considering the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court sentenced Curuchiche to consecutive terms of 300 months of imprisonment on each count. In this timely appeal, Curuchiche argues that his 600-month sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to address three non-frivolous arguments for leniency: (1) the relative severity of his conduct, (2) the comparison to state sentences for similar conduct, and (3) his imminent deportation. Because at sentencing Curuchiche did not object to the district court’s purported failure to address these arguments when given the opportunity to do so, we review for plain error, see United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865, 872-73 (6th Cir. 2004), requiring him “to show (1) error (2) that ‘was obvious or clear,’ (3) that ‘affected [his] substantial rights’ and (4) that ‘affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.’” United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Gardiner, 463 F.3d 445, 459 (6th Cir. 2006)). The district court “must consider all non-frivolous arguments in support of a lower sentence.” United States v. Gunter, 620 F.3d 642, 645 (6th Cir. 2010). The district court is not, however, required to “give the reasons for rejecting any and all arguments by the parties for alternative sentences.” Vonner, 516 F.3d at 387; see United States v. Odeh, 815 F.3d 968, 983 (6th Cir. 2016) (“[A] sentencing court need ...

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