USA v. Roberto Antonio Villalobos-Flores

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 19-12250
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-20978-UU-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO ANTONIO VILLALOBOS-FLORES,
a.k.a. Antonio Villalobos-Flores,
a.k.a. Rafael Uregarte Flores,

Defendant-Appellant.
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 9, 2020)
Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-12250 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 1 of 4

2

Roberto Villalobos-Flores was sentenced to serve 37 months in prison, at the
low end of the advisory guideline range, after he pled guilty to one count of illegal
reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He appeals his
sentence, arguing that it is substantively unreasonable because the district court
placed too much emphasis on his criminal history and gave insufficient weight to
other mitigating factors. After careful review, we affirm.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir.
2010) (en banc); United States v. Nagel, 835 F.3d 1371, 1376 (11th Cir. 2016). The
district court must impose “a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to
comply with the purposes” listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), including the need to
reflect the seriousness of the crime, promote respect for the law, provide just
punishment, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from the defendant’s
future criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)–(C). The court must also
consider “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant,” among other factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). The
weight to be assigned to these factors—whether great or slight—is committed to the
sound discretion of the district court, and “we will not reweigh the factors.” United
States v. Johnson, 803 F.3d 610, 620 (11th Cir. 2015).
Case: 19-12250 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 2 of 4

3

“The party challenging a sentence has the burden of showing that the sentence
is unreasonable in light of the entire record, the § 3553(a) factors, and the substantial
deference afforded sentencing courts.” United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d
1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015). We may not “set aside a sentence merely because we
would have decided that another one is more appropriate.” See Irey, 612 F.3d at
1191. Rather, “[w]e may set aside a sentence only if we determine, after giving a
full measure of deference to the sentencing judge, that the sentence imposed truly is
unreasonable.” Id. In other words, we will not vacate a sentence unless the party
challenging it convinces us that it lies outside the range of reasonable sentences
dictated by the facts of the case. Id. at 1190.
Here, Villalobos-Flores has not shown that his 37-month sentence is
substantively unreasonable. The district court properly weighed the § 3553(a)
factors and arrived at a reasonable sentence. Villalobos-Flores claims that the
district court placed undue emphasis on his criminal history while, at the same time,
giving too little weight to the violent conditions he faced in Honduras and the fact
that he was working to provide for his family in the United States. But we cannot
“r eweigh the factors” ourselves. Johnson, 803 F.3d at 620. And the court was well
within its discretion to give greater weight to his criminal history, which included
crimes of burglary and escape from jail, and the nature and circumstances of the
offense, which involved Villalobos-Flores’s second conviction for illegal reentry
Case: 19-12250 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 3 of 4

4

after removal. The court listened to Villalobos-Flores’s arguments in mitigation at
sentencing but found that the conditions in Honduras and his support for his wife
and stepdaughter did not excuse his conduct in coming to the United States and
“violat[ing] the law repeatedly.” The weight to give the § 3553(a) factors was a
matter for the district court, and we cannot say that the court imposed a sentence
outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case. See Irey,
612 F.3d at 1190.
Moreover, the reasonableness of the sentence is supported by the fact that it
was at the lowest point of the guideline range. United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d
1293, 1309–10 (11th Cir. 2016) (“We do not presume that a sentence falling within
the guidelines range is reasonable, but we ordinarily expect it to be so.”). The
sentence was also well below the statutory maximum of 20 years, which “is another
indicator of reasonableness.” Id.
For these reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing
Villalobos-Flores to 37 months of imprisonment.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-12250 Date Filed: 01/09/2020 Page: 4 of 4