United States v. Eleazar Mendoza-Amar , 326 F. App'x 73 ( 2009 )

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-1-2009
USA v. Eleazar Mendoza-Amar
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-3696
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Eleazar Mendoza-Amar" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1255.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1255
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3696
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ELEAZAR MENDOZA-AMARO,
Appellant
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 07-cr-00503-001)
District Judge: The Honorable Christopher C. Conner
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 21, 2009
BEFORE: FUENTES, JORDAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 1, 2009)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Eleazar Mendoza-Amaro was convicted of illegally re-entering the
United States after having been convicted of an aggravated felony and having been
deported in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2). Appellant concedes that there were
no factual or legal errors in the calculation of his guideline range. He also fails to assert
that the District Court failed to articulate its reasons for imposing the minimal guideline
sentence. Further, he does not assert that the District Court erred by failing to rule on any
extant motions or by indicating whether it was granting a departure. Appellant instead
only challenges the District Court’s reasonable application of the factors listed in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) to his case. We will affirm.
If a district court’s decision contains no procedural error, we review for the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. To be substantively reasonable, the
final sentence must be premised upon appropriate and judicious consideration of the
relevant § 3553(a) factors. Our substantive reasonableness review takes into account the
totality of the circumstances, but recognizes the sentencing judge is in a superior position
to find facts and judge their import.
The District Court here sentenced Appellant to seventy-one months’ imprisonment,
which was at the bottom of the seventy- to eighty-seven month range. Because this
sentence of seventy months is within the Guidelines range, it is less likely to be
unreasonable. The District Court gave an extensive and thorough statement of its
reasons, carefully considering all of Appellant’s arguments and weighed all of the
2
relevant information in arriving at its decision. As required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the
District Court gave due consideration to Appellant’s circumstances. Moreover, the
District Court heard argument on the severity of Appellant’s criminal record.
Accordingly, the District Court concluded that a seventy-month sentence was fair. On the
record before us, we cannot say that the District Court abused its discretion in imposing
the sentence.
For the above-stated reasons, we will affirm the District Court's sentence.
3