[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-16115 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 6, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 09-00261-CR-01-WSD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARTIN RIOS-GALACIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(May 6, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, BIRCH and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Martin Rios-Galacia appeals the thirty-month sentence imposed following his
guilty plea for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and
(b)(2). After review of the record, we affirm.
Rios-Galacia contends that his sentence, which falls within the advisory
guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-62, 125 S. Ct. 738, 764-66 (2005) (holding that
the United States Sentencing Guidelines are advisory and that a sentence within or
outside the applicable guidelines range is reviewed for unreasonableness). He argues
that a below-guidelines sentence was warranted in light of his history of employment,
his work ethic, his devotion to his family, his ongoing rehabilitation, and the
victimless nature of his crime. According to Rios-Galacia, a sentence of fewer than
thirty months would be a just punishment under the circumstances and would satisfy
the government’s interest in deterring others from illegally reentering the United
States after deportation.
We examine whether a sentence is reasonable in light of the record and the §
3553(a) factors.1 This court will not reverse a sentence unless “left with the definite
1
The factors include:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of
the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote
respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for
deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant
with needed educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of
sentences available; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy
statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwanted sentencing
disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to victims.
United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)).
2
and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in
weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of
reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Pugh, 515
F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation and citation omitted).
After considering the circumstances of Rios-Galacia’s case and considering the
§ 3553(a) factors, the district court imposed a sentence at the low end of the guidelines
range. The court concluded that a sentence of thirty months was appropriate for
several reasons, including: (1) the need to deter others who would “refuse to conform
their conduct to the laws” (R.3-33 at 31); (2) Rios-Galacia’s criminal history, which
demonstrated “an escalating pattern of severity” (id. at 25); and (3) his history of
“misconduct in virtually all aspects of his life.” (Id. at 20.) Rios-Galacia has not met
his burden to show that the court abused its discretion in determining that a thirty-
month sentence was appropriate, especially considering that the sentence was at the
bottom end of the advisory guidelines range of thirty to thirty-seven months. See
United States v. Sarras, 575 F.3d 1191, 1219 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting that there
appears to be “no post-Booker case in our circuit where a sentence within the advisory
guidelines range was held unreasonable.”). The sentence imposed was substantively
reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
3