United States v. Ronaldo Eguia Lara , 228 F. App'x 933 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
June 19, 2007
No. 06-15822 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00056-CR-FTM-99-DNF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONALDO EGUIA LARA,
a.k.a. Ivan Roy Lara,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 19, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ronaldo 1 Eguia Lara appeals his 70-month sentence following his guilty
plea to one count of re-entering the United States after being deported based on an
aggravated felony offense, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Lara argues
on appeal, inter alia, that the district court failed to consider properly the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, fashioned a sentence that is greater than necessary to achieve the
statutory purposes of sentencing, and imposed an unreasonable sentence.2 After
review, we affirm.
We review sentences for reasonableness in light of the factors listed in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261, 125 S. Ct. 738,
765-66 (2005). “[T]he party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of
establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both [the] record and
the factors in section 3553(a).” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th
Cir. 2005).
Post-Booker, we have established a two-part process for district courts to use
in sentencing. Id. at 786. First, the district court must consult and correctly
1
According to Lara, his first name is properly spelled “Rolando.” However, we use the
incorrect spelling “Ronaldo” since it is the name used throughout the record and the parties’
briefs.
2
Although Lara objected in the district court to his criminal history category and
requested a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, he does not raise these issues in
his brief. Therefore, we deem them abandoned. United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343,
1344 (11th Cir. 1998).
2
determine the advisory guidelines range set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines. Id.Second, the district court must impose a reasonable sentence by considering the
factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. Included among the § 3553(a)
factors are (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (2) the history and
characteristics of the defendant; (3) the need to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the
offense; (4) the need for deterrence; (5) the need to protect the public; (6) the
Sentencing Guidelines range; and (7) the need to avoid unwanted sentencing
disparities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, the district court is not required “to
state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or
to discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324,
1329 (11th Cir. 2005).
Upon review of the record and the sentencing hearing transcript, and
consideration of the briefs filed by both parties, we discern no reversible error.
First, there is no dispute on appeal that the district court correctly computed
the advisory guidelines range. Second, the district court listened to Lara’s
arguments regarding his background and reasons for re-entering the United States.
The district court stated that it had considered all of the § 3553(a) factors. The
district court was not required to address separately each § 3553(a) factor, even
3
though it addressed some of them. See Scott, 426 F.3d at 1329.
Third, Lara’s 70-month sentence is at the low end of the advisory guidelines
range and well within the statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment. See 8
U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Although the district court acknowledged that Lara had a
unique immigration status, no ties to Mexico, and that sending him to Mexico
would be like sending him to a foreign country, the district court also
acknowledged the seriousness of Lara’s lengthy criminal history, which is a proper
factor to consider under § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Moreover, Lara’s
argument that the district court gave too much weight to his criminal history is
unpersuasive.
In sum, we conclude that Lara has not shown that his 70-month sentence is
unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
4