United States v. Andres Gomez
955 F.3d 1250
| 11th Cir. | 2020Background
- Andres Gomez, a Mexican citizen, repeatedly reentered the U.S. after removals; he pled guilty in 2016 to unlawful reentry and received 12 months’ imprisonment plus 2 years’ supervised release (with ICE surrender and reporting conditions).
- Gomez was deported in July 2017, reentered by October 2017, and was arrested May 28, 2018 in Florida for sexual battery with threats; he pled guilty in state court and received an eight‑year sentence.
- The U.S. Probation Office filed a supervised‑release revocation petition (June 2018) charging failure to report, commission of sexual battery, and illegal reentry; Gomez admitted the charged violations.
- A separate federal indictment charged illegal reentry on or about May 28, 2018; Gomez pled guilty to that indictment. The cases were consolidated for sentencing.
- Guidelines ranges: supervised‑release revocation 15–21 months (offense level 13, CHC II); illegal reentry 46–57 months (offense level 19 after a 10‑point §2L1.2 enhancement, CHC IV).
- At sentencing (Jan. 30, 2019) the district court imposed 21 months for revocation and 46 months for illegal reentry, ordered the federal sentences consecutive to each other and consecutive to the undischarged 8‑year state sentence (total federal term 67 months). Gomez appealed as substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court imposed substantively unreasonable sentences by failing to properly weigh §3553(a) factors (deterrence, protection, respect for law). | Gomez: court did not adequately consider deterrence from his state 8‑year sentence and overemphasized punishment/protection. | Government/District court: judge considered §3553(a) factors, emphasized deterrence, public protection, and respect for law given Gomez’s repeated reentries and violent history. | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court considered §3553(a) and reasonably emphasized deterrence and protection. |
| Whether the district court erred by not accounting for double counting (state sexual‑battery conviction already increased the Guidelines for illegal reentry). | Gomez: state conviction was factored into his Guidelines range, so consecutive federal time was duplicative and unreasonable. | Government: district court knew the PSR and Guidelines calculations and permissibly gave them little weight in light of other §3553(a) concerns. | Affirmed — court was aware of the Guidelines calculation and reasonably declined to treat that as dispositive. |
| Proper standard of review for consecutive sentence to undischarged state term (de novo v. abuse of discretion). | Gomez cited Perez and Fuentes to argue for de novo review. | Government: where the applicable guideline authorizes discretion (U.S.S.G. §5G1.3(d)), review is for abuse of discretion; Perez/Fuentes involved distinct legal questions. | Held: abuse‑of‑discretion standard applies; Perez/Fuentes were limited to legal‑question contexts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes procedural and substantive reasonableness framework for appellate review of sentences)
- United States v. Perez, 956 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1992) (addressed de novo review where district court purported to depart from mandatory Guidelines)
- United States v. Fuentes, 107 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997) (de novo review applied where question was which Guidelines provision controlled)
- United States v. Andrews, 330 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2003) (distinguishes authority question from discretionary sentencing review; applies abuse of discretion to discretionary acts)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (explains when a sentence is substantively unreasonable under §3553(a))
- United States v. Rosales‑Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2015) (discusses deference to district court’s weighing of §3553(a) factors)
- Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (2012) (recognizes federal court discretion to order sentences concurrent or consecutive to other sentences)
- United States v. Trailer, 827 F.3d 933 (11th Cir. 2016) (standard for revocation and need to consider §3553(a) factors when revoking supervised release)