Case: 13-12606 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12606
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cr-00240-MHT-WC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DOMINGO MIGUEL MORALES-SEBASTIAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(October 21, 2013)
Before DUBINA, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-12606 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Domingo Morales-Sebastian appeals his 20-month sentence, which the
district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of illegal re-entry, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). After careful review, we affirm.
After Morales-Sebastian pleaded guilty, the probation officer prepared a
presentence investigation report (PSI) calculating his base-offense level of 8, under
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a). Because Morales-Sebastian previously had been deported
after a prior conviction for a crime of violence, the PSI applied a 12-level
enhancement. Id. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). With a 3-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility, his total offense level was 17. Because Morales-Sebastian’s
criminal-history category was I, his ultimate guidelines range was 24-30 months’
imprisonment. The district court adopted the PSI’s calculations but ultimately
sentenced Morales-Sebastian to a below-guidelines sentence of 20 months. This is
Morales-Sebastian’s appeal.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The district
court must impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary to
comply with the purposes” listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), including the need to
reflect the seriousness of the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public
from the defendant’s potential future criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
And the court must consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the
2
Case: 13-12606 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 3 of 4
history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the
applicable guidelines range, the relevant policy statements of the sentencing
commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to
provide restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
Morales-Sebastian contends his sentence is unreasonable because the 12-
level enhancement for his prior burglary conviction and subsequent deportation is
unduly harsh because that conviction occurred over a decade ago. He asserts that
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)’s enhancement is not supported by empirical evidence that
double-digit enhancements are warranted and, as a result, defendants sentenced
under that provision are essentially punished again for a previous offense. Based
on this injustice and on his history and characteristics, Morales-Sebastian argues,
the district court abused its discretion in varying downwards by only four months.
We cannot agree that, in light of the district court’s thorough reasoning at
sentencing, its ultimate sentence amounted to an abuse of discretion. The district
court detailed Morales-Sebastian’s mitigating personal circumstances — he came
into the country as a child, not by his own choice — and weighed those factors
against the severity of his criminal history. The court agreed with Morales-
Sebastian that the enhancement was harsh in light of “the age of the underlying
offense” and, resultantly, sentenced him below his guidelines range, finding “the
sentence imposed is sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with” the
3
Case: 13-12606 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 4 of 4
factors in § 3553(a). Based on the totality of the circumstances, which the district
court carefully considered, we cannot say the court imposed a sentence that lies
outside the range of reasonable sentences.
AFFIRMED.
4