United States of America v. Carlos Raul Cortez

* The Honorable David L. Bunning, United States District Judge for the Eastern District
of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 06a0094n.06
Filed: February 7, 2006
No. 05-6120
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CARLOS RAUL CORTEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TENNESSEE
/
BEFORE: MARTIN, MOORE, Circuit Judges; and BUNNING, District Judge. *
BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. On April 18, 2003, Carlos Raul Cortez pled guilty
to one count of illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court
sentenced him, pursuant to the then-mandatory sentencing guidelines, to forty-six months
imprisonment. Cortez appealed his sentence to this Court. Prior to our decision on his appeal, the
Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Based on Booker,
we remanded the case to the district court for resentencing.
A resentencing hearing was held by the district court on June 30, 2005. At the hearing

-- 1 of 3 --

defense counsel argued that based on the evidence in the record, Cortez was entitled to a lower
sentence than what he had originally been given under the then-mandatory guidelines. The district
court disagreed with defense arguments, concluding that the guideline sentence that Cortez
originally received was the appropriate sentence based on the district court’s mandate under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) . Thus, the district court resentenced Cortez to forty-six months imprisonment.
Cortez then appealed this decision, claiming that the district court’s resentencing of him was
unreasonable.
Booker indicates that “[t]he district courts, while not bound to apply the Guidelines, must
consult those Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing” and “[t]he courts of appeals
review sentencing decisions for unreasonableness.” 125 S.Ct. at 767. The reasonableness of a
sentence, according to the Court, should be determined by consulting the factors listed in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Id. Those factors, in addition to the appropriate advisory guideline range calculation,
include the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant, as well as the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote
respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, protect the public, and
provide the defendant with needed training and medical care. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We are convinced that the district court's sentence in the present case is reasonable. The
district court properly consulted the Guidelines and explained its reasons for doing so, and imposed
a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range. Additionally, the district court expressly
considered the defendant’s arguments regarding the need for a reduced sentence based on other
section 3553(a) factors, and it simply concluded that these considerations were insufficient to
warrant a lower sentence. After reviewing the record, we find nothing unreasonable about this
conclusion. Accordingly, we AFFIRM Cortez’s sentence as reasonable.

-- 2 of 3 --

-- 3 of 3 --