United States of America v. Armando Misael Villanueva

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 26a0077n.06
No. 25-1326
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ARMANDO MISAEL VILLANUEVA,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
OPINION
Before: McKEAGUE, LARSEN, and RITZ, Circuit Judges
LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Armando Villanueva pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a
machine gun. The district court sentenced him to a within-Guidelines sentence of 84 months’
imprisonment. Villanueva challenges his sentence as substantively unreasonable. We AFFIRM.
I.
Armando Villanueva possessed and trafficked firearms. A grand jury indicted him for
conspiring to possess and transfer machine guns and possessing a machine gun. Villanueva
pleaded guilty to the latter charge. Prior to sentencing, Villanueva moved for a downward
variance. The district court rejected the variance motion, calculated the Guidelines range at 70 to
87 months, and sentenced Villanueva to 84 months in prison. His sentence was to run
consecutively to any state-court sentence for a related parole violation.
Villanueva then appealed to this court, claiming that the district court had erred by
declining to run his sentence concurrent to any state-court sentence. The government admitted
that it had mistakenly opposed a concurrent sentence, despite its promise in the plea agreement not

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 25-1326, United States v. Villanueva
-2-
to oppose one. The government then asked this court to remand to the district court to allow the
court to reconsider whether to run the sentence consecutively or concurrently with no opposition
from the government. Based on the government’s concession of error, this court vacated the
sentence and remanded for the district court to consider whether the sentence should run
concurrently instead of consecutively. On remand, Villanueva again requested a downward
variance. The district court again rejected the variance, again calculated the Guidelines range at
70 to 87 months, and again sentenced Villanueva to 84 months. But this time the court ordered
the sentence to run concurrently to any state-court sentence. Villanueva again appeals, this time
challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
II.
A substantive reasonableness claim “is a claim that a sentence is too long.” United States
v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir. 2018). “It’s a complaint that the court placed too much
weight on some of the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and too little on others in sentencing the
individual.” Id. We review for an abuse of discretion, id., and presume that a sentence within the
Guidelines range, like Villanueva’s, is reasonable, United States v. Owen, 940 F.3d 308, 317 (6th
Cir. 2019).
In determining Villanueva’s sentence, the district court considered the nature and
circumstances of the offense, which included that Villanueva’s arrest stemmed from his part in a
gunfight over a girlfriend while Villanueva was on parole. As for the conviction offense itself, the
court noted that, due to its rapid-fire capabilities, the machine gun Villanueva possessed was
“extremely dangerous” and could “create devastation to a community, . . . so the seriousness of
this offense . . . [could not] be overstated.” R. 559, Sentencing Tr., PageID 2966. The court found
the seriousness of the offense “probably a preeminent factor” because there are “many

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 25-1326, United States v. Villanueva
-3-
neighborhoods in west Michigan that are plagued by gun violence and [Villanueva’s] conduct
substantially contributed to that by being in possession of a gun that can fire over 1,000 rounds a
minute and using a straw purchaser to get guns.” Id. at 2969. The court considered Villanueva’s
lengthy criminal history, which started at the age of 11 and included several drug and firearm
convictions. The court found this history “extremely concerning” and found that it “really
inform[ed] the [c]ourt as to whether a guideline sentence [was] appropriate here.” Id. at 2967.
The court explained that Villanueva had “a very prolific criminal history, and efforts to curtail
[Villanueva] up until this point ha[d] been met with no impact.” Id. at 2968. The court weighed
those factors against the mitigating evidence, which included that Villanueva had obtained a GED
and grew up without a father in his life and with a family facing financial problems. In the end,
the court concluded that a downward variance was not appropriate; instead, a within-Guidelines
sentence of 84 months was “sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the statutory
purposes of sentencing.” Id. at 2972. The court therefore “properly considered all of the factors,
balanced them, and imposed a reasonable sentence.” See Rayyan, 885 F.3d at 443. Villanueva’s
sentence was substantively reasonable.
Villanueva argues that the court erred by not imposing a downward variance in light of his
difficult childhood and the fact that several misdemeanors were included in the calculation of his
criminal history score. He says that the court “should have considered [a] variance to a lower
guideline level” and that “[a] lower sentence in the range of 63-78 months would still afford
adequate deterrence and protect the public from further crimes.” Appellant Br. at 22. But the
district court did consider a variance; it weighed Villanueva’s positives (including those outlined
by Villanueva on appeal) against the negatives, ultimately concluding that a within-Guidelines
sentence was appropriate. Villanueva would have us balance the factors differently, but that is

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 25-1326, United States v. Villanueva
-4-
beyond the scope of our appellate review. United States v. Miller, 73 F.4th 427, 431 (6th Cir.
2023). Villanueva has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded his within-
Guidelines sentence.
* * *
We AFFIRM.

-- 4 of 4 --