United States v. Juan Flores-Juarez

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-2070 _____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JUAN PABLO FLORES-JUAREZ, a/k/a Leonardo Valencia-Flores, a/k/a Efrain Tlehuactle Flores Juan Pablo Flores-Juarez, Appellant _____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania District Court No. 2-16-cr-00343-001 District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 18, 2018 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, GREENAWAY, JR. and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: February 27, 2018) _____________________ OPINION _______________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. SMITH, Chief Judge. After Juan Pablo Flores-Juarez pled guilty to one count of illegal entry after deportation, the District Court sentenced him to eighteen months’ imprisonment to be followed by one year of supervised release, an upward variance from the Sentencing Guidelines range of two to eight months’ imprisonment. Flores-Juarez appeals this sentence, claiming that the District Court improperly considered rehabilitation. We will affirm the sentence imposed by the District Court. I. Flores-Juarez was charged with one count of unlawful reentry pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He pled guilty. During the plea colloquy, Flores-Juarez admitted, among other things, that he had been deported from the United States on seven previous occasions.1 Nevertheless, he had been charged with illegal reentry only once before, and received a thirty-day sentence on that charge. Although the maximum penalty for unlawful reentry is two years’ imprisonment followed by a one-year period of supervised release, the Sentencing Guidelines range calls for two to eight months’ imprisonment. The Government recommended that Flores-Juarez be sentenced within that range, while Flores-Juarez advocated that he be sentenced to time served. Prior to sentencing, the District Court notified the parties that it was considering “a significant upward variance to deter [Flores-Juarez] from coming into the country illegally a[ ninth] time” and requested written briefing on that subject. J.A. 56–57. At 1 Flores-Juarez was previously deported on June 18, 2007, July 27, 2009, August 11, 2009, August 13, 2009, August 15, 2009, February 8, 2010, and May 4, 2010. 2 sentencing, the District Court considered the parties’ briefs and the pre-sentence investigation report. The District Court considered the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment to avoid adequate [sic] returns to criminal conduct, and to protect the public from any further crimes this defendant might commit. Perhaps more than any other case I’ve had in the 13 years I’ve been here, this defendant needs to be deterred from illegally re-entering the United States. . . . I have considered the need to provide the defendant with educational/vocational training and medical care. . . . I’ve considered the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities and the need to provide restitution to victims. J.A. 85–86. Ultimately, the District Court decided that “an upward variance is important and reasonable here in light of this ...

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