United States v. Victor Solorcino Tavia ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •             Case: 18-10455   Date Filed: 08/23/2018   Page: 1 of 5
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 18-10455
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00222-CG-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    VICTOR SOLORCINO TAVIA,
    a.k.a. Victor Solorcino-Tavia,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Alabama
    ________________________
    (August 23, 2018)
    Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 18-10455       Date Filed: 08/23/2018      Page: 2 of 5
    Victor Solorzano-Tavia1 received a statutory-maximum 24-month sentence
    for violating the terms of his supervised release. On appeal, he argues that his
    sentence was greater than necessary and thus substantively unreasonable. We
    disagree.
    “We review the sentence imposed [by the district court] upon the revocation
    of supervised release for reasonableness.” United States v. Vandergrift, 
    754 F.3d 1303
    , 1307 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks, citation omitted). A district
    court’s decision to exceed the guideline sentencing range is reviewed for an abuse
    of discretion. United States v. Aguillard, 
    217 F.3d 1319
    , 1320 (11th Cir. 2000).
    The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of showing that the sentence is
    unreasonable. United States v. Tome, 
    611 F.3d 1371
    , 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
    Upon finding that a defendant has violated a condition of supervised release,
    a district court may revoke the term of supervised release and impose a term of
    imprisonment after considering the following criteria: (1) the nature and
    circumstances of the offense; (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant;
    (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the Sentencing
    Guidelines and policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (6) the need to
    avoid unwarranted disparity among defendants; and (7) the need to provide
    restitution to victims. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (cross-referencing § 3553(a)(1),
    1
    Solorzano’s name has been incorrectly spelled in lower court documents as “Solorcino.”
    2
    Case: 18-10455     Date Filed: 08/23/2018    Page: 3 of 5
    (a)(2)(B)-(D), (a)(4)-(7)). When considering what sentence is substantively
    reasonable regarding revocation of supervised release, the sentencing court should
    “sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of trust, while taking into account, to a
    limited degree, the seriousness of the underlying violation.” U.S.S.G. § 7A
    Introduction 3(b). Additionally, the Guidelines advise that “any sentence of
    imprisonment for a criminal offense that is imposed after revocation of probation
    or supervised release be run consecutively to any term of imprisonment imposed
    upon revocation.” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3 n.4. We will only vacate a sentence if we are
    convinced that the sentence falls beyond the reasonable range of sentences for a
    given case. United States v. Irey, 
    612 F.3d 1160
    , 1189-90 (11th Cir. 2010) (en
    banc).
    Here, Solorzano has not met his burden of demonstrating that his sentence is
    unreasonable. See 
    Tome, 611 F.3d at 1378
    . First, it is undisputed that Solorzano
    had, at the time of this trial, tried to illegally reenter the United States on seven
    prior occasions, three of which had resulted in convictions. In imposing its
    sentence, the court followed 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and considered, among other
    things, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics
    of the defendant, and the need for deterrence. The court remarked that this was
    “the most egregious case of illegal reentry that [it had] seen,” and further explained
    that it could see no way aside from a maximum sentence to impress upon
    3
    Case: 18-10455     Date Filed: 08/23/2018    Page: 4 of 5
    Solorzano the need for him to obey the law and refrain from coming back to the
    United States illegally. Tr. Trans. at 6, 12. Considering Solorzano’s record of
    reentry, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in providing the
    maximum statutory sentence. See 
    Aguillard, 217 F.3d at 1320
    .
    Solorzano also argues that it was inappropriate for the district court to
    effectively sentence him to four years’ imprisonment for a single act of reentry.
    Br. of Appellant at 6-7. The premise on which this argument relies is incorrect; the
    court did not sentence Solorzano twice for the same conduct. Rather, the court
    sentenced him first for illegal reentry, and then again—and separately—for
    violating the terms of his supervised release. U.S.S.G. § 7A Introduction 3(b).
    And, as noted above, the district court’s concurrent sentencing was in keeping with
    the Guidelines’ suggestion. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3 n.4.
    And finally, Solorzano insists that he was not previously notified of his
    supervised release, thus warranting reversal. This argument also fails. It is
    undisputed that the record before the sentencing court reflected that Solorzano had
    been placed on supervised release following a prior conviction in Texas for illegal
    reentry. It is also undisputed that a condition of Solorzano’s supervised release
    was that he not reenter the United States illegally. While Solorzano disputes that
    he was ever given notice of being placed on supervised release at all, he has not
    proven that he lacked notice, nor has he provided any reason why the previous
    4
    Case: 18-10455     Date Filed: 08/23/2018    Page: 5 of 5
    court’s records would be unreliable. Accordingly, Solorzano has failed to meet his
    burden of showing that the court was unreasonable to rely on the official record of
    the preceding court in imposing its sentence. 
    Tome, 611 F.3d at 1378
    .
    In light of Solorzano’s history—i.e., three prior convictions for illegal
    reentry and at least eight illegal-reentry attempts—we conclude that his sentence
    was substantively reasonable, and therefore that the district court did not abuse its
    discretion. Accordingly, we affirm.
    AFFIRMED.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-10455

Filed Date: 8/23/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021