UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Samuel SANTOS-GUEVARA, also known as Samuel Reyes-Guevara, also known as Samuel Santos Guevara, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-20107
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 30, 2010.
874
Summary Calendar.
Carmen Roe, Esq., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Following a stipulated bench trial, the district court found Samuel Santos-Guevara guilty of being an alien previously removed after conviction for an aggravated felony who was found in the United States without having obtained consent to reenter and sentenced him to 40 months in prison. Santos-Guevara appeals the district court‘s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment as barred by the applicable five-year statute of limitations. The Government concedes that the indictment was returned more that five years after Santos-Guevara was “found in” the United States and that the indictment is barred by the statute of limitations.
We review the district court‘s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Gunera, 479 F.3d 373, 376 (5th Cir.2007). Prosecution under
A December 2003 letter from immigration authorities sent to Santos-Guevara under his alias shows that by that date immigration authorities had enough information, including an FBI fingerprint background check, to be reasonably attributed with knowledge of Santos-Guevara‘s illegal presence in the United States, despite any false, misleading, or missing information in Santos-Guevara‘s applications for temporary protected status. Because knowledge of Santos-Guevara‘s illegal presence in the United States can reasonably be attributed to immigration authorities more than five years before the July 15, 2009, indictment was returned, the indictment was not timely. See Santana-Castellano, 74 F.3d at 598. We REVERSE the denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment, VA-
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roylan ROMERO-CORONADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10320
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 30, 2010.
875
Summary Calendar.
Kevin Joel Page, Charles M. Bleil, Federal Public Defender‘s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roylan Romero-Coronado (Romero) appeals the 72-month sentence imposed in connection with his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States following his prior deportation.
Romero‘s sole argument on appeal is that in imposing his sentence (an upward variance from the guidelines range), the district court procedurally erred by failing to acknowledge or explain its disagreement with the United States Sentencing Commission‘s policy decision that the severity of a reentry offense should be measured by the defendant‘s most serious pre-deportation conviction, not by the defendant‘s number of deportations. In support, Romero relies in large part on United States v. Simmons, 568 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2009), wherein we stated that when a district court disagrees with the Guidelines’ policy considerations, “what is necessary is that a court explain its reasons for disagreeing with [same].” Id. at 570. Romero‘s claim of procedural error is premised on his assertion that the Sentencing Commission has made the policy decision that courts should not consider an illegal reentry defendant‘s prior deportations in assessing the severity of the defendant‘s offense conduct. Romero, however, points to no provision, policy statement, or commentary within the Guidelines that supports his assertion. Accordingly, Simmons is not applicable to the instant case, and Romero has not shown that the district court committed any procedural error. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
The district court‘s judgment is AFFIRMED.