USA vs Walter Melendrez-Leiva

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEBRUARY 4, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-11535
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00458-CAP-RGV-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WALTER MELENDREZ-LEIVA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(February 4, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, BARKETT and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Walter Melendrez-Leiva appeals his 52-month sentence, imposed after he
pleaded guilty to reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8

-- 1 of 3 --

U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). Melendrez-Leiva argues on appeal that his sentence
is substantively unreasonable. Specifically, Melendrez-Leiva contends that the
district court did not vary downward far enough from his guideline range,
imposing a sentence greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of
sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), and failing to adequately address
the “history and characteristics of the defendant” under § 3553(a)(1). Melendrez-
Leiva argues that a 52-month sentence for illegal reentry is unreasonable because
he tried to lead a productive life in Guatemala with his wife and child but had to
flee to the United States under threats of death from his brother.
This Court reviews the reasonableness of a sentence under a “deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The
sentencing court shall impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary” to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth in § 3553(a)(2),
namely, to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law,
provide just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, protect the public
from future criminal conduct by the defendant, and provide the defendant with
needed educational or vocational training or medical care. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
In imposing a particular sentence, the court must also consider the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the
2

-- 2 of 3 --

kinds of sentences available, the applicable guideline range, the pertinent policy
statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
In this case, Melendrez-Leiva failed to show that his 52-month sentence was
unreasonable. The district court departed downwards from Melendrez-Leiva’s
guideline range of 77 to 96 months, explaining that:
[Melendrez-Leiva’s] last conviction shows that . . . in
June 2005, he pled guilty in court in the Eastern District
of California . . . [and they] sentenced him to 51 months.
Well, I don’t want to go as high as 77. I’m not sure I
would go below 51, since he already has got a sentence
in that range and is a repeat offender.
The district court made an individualized assessment of the case and, after
considering all the § 3553(a) factors, imposed a below-guidelines sentence that
falls within the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of this case.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --