United States of America, Appellee, v. Ismael Ruelas-Mendez, also known as Luis Reyna-Gonzalez, also known as Jose Velazquez, also known as Ismael Ruelas, also known as Luis Gonzalez, Luis Reina Gonsales, agent of, also known as Jose Velasquez, also known as Luis Reyna-Gonzales, Appellant.
No. 07-3686
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Submitted: June 12, 2008; Filed: February 9, 2009
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.
Ismael Ruelas-Mendez pled guilty to illegal re-entry to the United States after a previous deportation, in violation of
On May 14, 2007, Ruelas-Mendez was arrested for possession of cocaine. An investigation revealed that he was in the
In June 2007, a grand jury charged Ruelas-Mendez with unlawful re-entry into the United States after a previous deportation. He entered a plea of guilty. The probation office calculated Ruelas-Mendez‘s advisory guideline range to be 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment, and the district court adopted the calculation. Ruelas-Mendez urged the court to impose a sentence below the advisory range, based on
On appeal, Ruelas-Mendez argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable, because the district court failed to give adequate weight to mitigating facts, and gave too much weight to the sentencing guidelines and the need for deterrence. We review the reasonableness of the district court‘s sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007). Because the court imposed a sentence within the advisory guideline range and consistent with the recommendation of the Sentencing Commission, we presume that it is substantively reasonable. United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005); see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007).
Ruelas-Mendez contends that the district court gave “no apparent weight to the unique and devastating circumstances” arising from the fact that his children reside in the United States and need his financial and emotional support. He also asserts that the criminal history score under the advisory guidelines greatly overstated his criminal history and propensity for future crimes. The district court, however, considered these points and found them unpersuasive grounds to justify a more lenient sentence. The court expressed “empathy without doubt” to Ruelas-Mendez‘s spouse and family, and acknowledged that the circumstances were “incredibly difficult for them.” But the court explained that Ruelas-Mendez‘s prior conviction for distributing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, although dating to 1992, was a serious offense about which the United States has “a very strong feeling,” that Ruelas-Mendez then violated the prohibition on re-entry by returning to the United States, and that he then unlawfully re-entered yet again, at which time he was found in Minnesota with cocaine, rather than in California with his family. The court explained that it had “run out of a certain degree of patience when it comes to this kind of conduct,” and that a firm sentence was warranted. The court also observed that the Sentencing Guidelines, although now advisory, exist “to avoid unwarranted disparity in sentences so that sentences are relatively uniform.”
The district court‘s explanation satisfies us that the sentence is substantively reasonable. Under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard described in Gall, the court has substantial latitude to determine how much weight to give the various factors under
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.