USA v. Rios-Zavala

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 20, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-15849
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cr-00300-EAK-EAJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SERGIO RIOS-ZAVALA,
l lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 20, 2011)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sergio Rios-Zavala appeals his sentence of a year and a day for reentering

-- 1 of 2 --

the United States illegally. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a)(1); 1326(a), (b)(1); 1329. Rios-
Zavala argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Rios-Zavala
within the guideline range. Although Rios-Zavala was permitted to return
voluntarily to Mexico in 2003 after being arrested for his role in a conspiracy to
commit forgery, border patrol agents again apprehended Rios-Zavala after he
returned to the United States illegally in August 2004, November 2004, December
2004, June 2007, and in June 2010. The district court considered “all the
[sentencing] factors,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and reasonably determined that a
sentence that exceeded one year was necessary to address Rios-Zavala’s repeated
illegal reentries, and would provide adequate punishment, promote respect for the
law, and deter future similar misconduct. Rios-Zavala argues that the district court
“never seriously considered” his dire economic circumstances, but the district
court “recognize[d] and underst[oo]d that things [were] bad in Mexico [and Rios-
Zavala] came here trying to earn a living.” The district court nevertheless found
that Rios-Zavala’s poverty did not outweigh his criminal history and the need to
deter him from entering the United States yet again. Rios-Zavala’s sentence is
reasonable.
Rios-Zavala’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --