USA v. Carlos Armando Rodriguez-Lemos

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 11, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-16107
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-20692-CR-FAM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ-LEMOS,
a.k.a. Jose Martinez,
a.k.a. Carlos Rodriguez,
a.k.a. Carlos Armando Rodriguez-Lemus,
a.k.a. Hose Manuel Martinez,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 11, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and FAY, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 4 --

PER CURIAM:
Carlos Armando Rodriguez-Lemos pled guilty to illegal re-entry after
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), and the district court
sentenced him to prison for a term of 30 months, a sentence at the high end of the
Guidelines sentencing range of 24 to 30 months’ imprisonment. He now appeals
his sentence, arguing that it is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
We affirm.
We review a defendant’s sentence for reasonableness, United States v.
Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1321 (11th Cir. 2008), under the abuse-of-discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d
445 (2007). In reviewing a sentence, we first “ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the Guidelines [sentencing] range, treating the Guidelines
as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a
sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 46, 128 S.Ct. at 594. Section 3553(a) requires
the district court to consider (1) the applicable Guidelines sentencing range; (2) the
nature and circumstances of the offense; (3) the history and characteristics of the
defendant; (4) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the
2

-- 2 of 4 --

offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the
offense; (5) the need for adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (6) the need to
protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; (7) the need to provide the
defendant with needed training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the
most effective manner; and (8) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing
disparities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(6).
Once we conclude that the district court made no procedural errors, we
consider “the substantive reasonableness of the sentence” under the totality of the
circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. at 597. The district court should
have imposed a sentence that was “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to
comply with the purposes of sentencing listed in § 3553(a)(2). 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2). “The weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) [purpose] is a
matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Williams, 526 F.3d
at 1322 (quotation omitted).
In reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, we may apply a presumption of
reasonableness to a sentence imposed within the Guidelines sentencing range. Rita
v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L. Ed.2d 203
(2005). That is, we “ordinarily . . . expect a sentence within the guidelines range to
be reasonable.” United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008).
3

-- 3 of 4 --

We find no procedural errors in the imposition of Rodriguez-Lemos’s
sentence in this case. Moreover, we find no abuse of its discretion in the
imposition of a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines sentencing range
because the court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors in fashioning the
sentence. In short, the sentence in this case is not unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --