NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 17-1195 ________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JUAN CARLOS ANGUIANO-GUERRERO, a/k/a JUAN CARLOS ANGUIANO Juan Carlos Anguiano-Guerrero, Appellant ________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal Action No. 5-16-cr-00302-001) District Judge: Honorable Joseph F. Leeson, Junior ________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 14, 2017 Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 7, 2017) ________________ OPINION * ________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. AMBRO, Circuit Judge Juan Carlos Anguiano-Guerrero (“Anguiano”) is a native and citizen of Mexico. He has two children, Jonathon Anguiano and Dalton Anguiano, who are both American citizens. He was married to an American citizen, Heather Guerrero, though they are now divorced. During the marriage she filed a “petition for alien relative” on Anguiano’s behalf, and the Department of Homeland Security waived Anguiano’s inadmissibility relating to his illegal entry to the United States. He became a legal permanent resident on November 23, 2004. A year later, Anguiano was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for fatally shooting a man during a fight. Despite his legal permanent resident status, the conviction made him deportable. After serving his sentence, he was deported to Mexico. Three months later, he was taken into custody by ICE agents near Mission, Texas, charged and convicted with illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment. After serving his sentence, he was again deported. Then, about two years later, on June 29, 2016, Anguiano was taken into custody by ICE agents in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, and again charged with illegal reentry. In its presentence report, the Probation Office found that the base offense level for the § 1326(a) violation was eight. It applied a four-level enhancement because Anguiano had a previous conviction for illegal reentry, a ten-level enhancement for his prior manslaughter conviction, and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Thus Anguiano was left with a total offense level of nineteen. His prior convictions resulted in six criminal history points and placed him in criminal history category III, 2 with an advisory Guidelines range of 37-46 months’ imprisonment. This range was undisputed and applied by the District Court at sentencing. After reviewing the § 3553(a) factors and considering arguments from counsel regarding an appropriate sentence, the Court sentenced Anguiano to 46 months in prison, at the high end of the Guidelines range. Anguiano appeals this sentence, arguing that the Court committed procedural error by failing to acknowledge four arguments he made in his sentencing memorandum for imposing a sentence at the lower end of the range. Anguiano, however, failed to object to his sentence at trial, and so we must review for plain error. See United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253, 255 (3d Cir. 2014) (“[W]hen a party wishes to take an appeal based on a procedural error ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals