United States of America v. Alexandro Rivera, aka Alexandro Toledo- Rivera

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 23a0148n.06
No. 22-3715
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALEXANDRO RIVERA, aka Alexandro Toledo-
Rivera,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
OPINION
Before: BOGGS, LARSEN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
LARSEN, Circuit Judge. While on supervised release, Alexandro Rivera brutally assaulted
his ex-girlfriend and threatened to “shoot up” her friend’s house while she was inside it. Rivera
pleaded guilty to attempted burglary and domestic violence in state court, for which he served
eighteen months in prison. Once Rivera completed that sentence, he was transferred to federal
custody, where he admitted to committing the crimes and thus violating the terms of his supervised
release. For the supervised-release violation, the district court sentenced Rivera to twenty months
in prison. In weighing the sentencing factors, the district court considered “the need for the
sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to
provide just punishment for the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). Rivera argues that was error,
citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), which lists certain factors the court may consider when sentencing for
a supervised-release violation but doesn’t specifically enumerate § 3553(a)(2)(A). This court has
expressly rejected that argument in a published opinion, “hold[ing] that it does not constitute

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-3715, United States v. Rivera
-2-
reversible error to consider § 3553(a)(2)(A) when imposing a sentence for violation of supervised
release, even though this factor is not enumerated in § 3583(e).” See United States v. Lewis, 498
F.3d 393, 399–400 (6th Cir. 2007). Rivera acknowledges this but argues that Lewis was wrongly
decided. Lewis, however, binds us. See Salmi v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 774 F.2d 685,
689 (6th Cir. 1985). Because Lewis forecloses Rivera’s only argument on appeal, we AFFIRM
his sentence.

-- 2 of 2 --