Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Gerardo Ramirez-Alvarado, 11th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Gerardo Ramirez-Alvarado, 11th Cir. (2015)
Page: 1 of 5
Case: 14-14696
Page: 2 of 5
Case: 14-14696
Page: 3 of 5
(explaining that certain prior convictions are not scored if the resulting sentence
was imposed too many years before the defendant commenced his instant
offense of conviction); id. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (providing that, if a defendant
previously was deported after having been convicted of a felony that is a crime of
violence, he receives a 16-level enhancement if the conviction was scored and a
12-level enhancement if it was not); United States v. Castrillon-Gonzalez, 77 F.3d
403, 406 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding that, for purposes of calculating a defendants
criminal history score, the commencement of the crime of being found in the
United States [under 8 U.S.C. 1326] is at the point of entry). He also argues
that the district court failed to consider that the low end of his advisory guidelines
range (77 months) was much higher than the 24-month sentence that he had
received for a previous illegal reentry conviction, and that his personal history and
characteristics merited a shorter sentence.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597
(2007). Under that deferential standard, we will vacate a sentence only if[] we are
left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear
error of judgment in weighing the [18 U.S.C. 3553(a)] factors by arriving at a
sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of
the case. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc)
3
Case: 14-14696
Page: 4 of 5
(quotation marks omitted). The party challenging a sentence has the burden of
showing that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the entire record, the
3553(a) factors, and the substantial deference afforded sentencing courts. United
States v. Langston, 590 F.3d 1226, 1236 (11th Cir. 2009).
Ramirez-Alvarados 72-month sentence is substantively reasonable. For
starters, it is a below-guidelines sentence. Because we ordinarily expect withinguidelines sentences to be reasonable, see United States v. Asante, 782 F.3d 639,
648 (11th Cir. 2015), that fact alone is a strong indicator of the sentences
reasonableness. Equally to the point, the sentence was not the product of a clear
error in judgment. The district court considered the advisory guidelines range,
treated it as advisory, and varied downward based on the fact that old
convictions trigger[ed] a very large adjustment in the calculation of the guideline
range.1 It did not vary downward as much as Ramirez-Alvarado would have
liked, however, because it determined that a shorter sentence (such as the 24month sentence that he previously received for the same crime) would not
adequately deter him from illegally entering the country a fifth time. The court
also determined that a shorter sentence would not adequately account for the fact
that he had committed multiple crimes each time he had entered the United States,
In a way, then, the district court did give Ramirez-Alvarado credit for being honest with
ICE. Of course, his real reward was not receiving an obstruction of justice enhancement. See
U.S.S.G. 3C1.1.
4
Case: 14-14696
Page: 5 of 5