F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
May 3, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AM ERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee, No. 06-4127
v. (Case No. 1:05-CR -88-TS)
NARCESO M ORA-PEREZ, a.k.a. (D. Utah)
Inocente Santos-Benitez,
Defendant–Appellant.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before BR ISC OE, M cKA Y, and M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judges.
Defendant pled guilty to illegal re-entry of a deported alien in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326. Defendant did not object to the presentence report’s calculation
of a Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months, but he requested either a downward
departure under the Guidelines or a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
based on his mental illness. The district court rejected this argument and imposed
a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range. On appeal, Defendant
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Defendant argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because
the court provided an “unreasoned and unsupported” explanation for its
conclusion that the § 3553(a) factors did not justify a lower sentence in this case.
(Def’s Br. at 3, 6.) Defendant failed to object below to the “procedure by which
his sentence was determined and explained,” so we review the court’s judgment
for plain error. United States v. Ruiz-Terrazas, 477 F.3d 1196, 1199 (10th Cir.
2007). “Plain error occurs w hen there is (i) error, (ii) that is plain, which (iii)
affects substantial rights, and which (iv) seriously affects the fairness, integrity,
or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not
plainly err in the method by which it determined and explained Defendant’s
sentence. In response to Defendant’s argument that he should receive a lower
sentence because prisons are ill-equipped to deal with mentally ill inmates, the
court concluded that a lesser sentence w as not justified in this case, based in part
on the court’s opinion that “this defendant would be better served, at least for
purposes of treating his mental illness, while he is incarcerated than he would be
if he w as sent back to M exico under the conditions that he fled from.” (R. Vol. II
at 9.) Defendant contends that there is no support in the record for the court’s
conclusion that he w ould receive better treatment in prison than in M exico. In
considering this argument, it is important to remember the context of the court’s
-2-
statement. The court did not conclude that a higher sentence than usual was
justified because Defendant would receive better medical treatment in prison than
he w ould if released; rather, the court concluded that Defendant’s mental illness
did not justify imposing a sentence below the Guidelines range. Thus, we will not
find plain error unless we are convinced that the court should have sentenced
Defendant to a below-Guidelines sentence.
W hile it may be true that Defendant will not receive better treatment in
prison than in M exico, the record supports a conclusion that the treatment
Defendant will receive in prison will be no worse than what he would receive in
M exico. The psychologist who evaluated D efendant stated that Defendant’s
medical condition was being appropriately treated, and he did not suggest that any
alternative or additional treatment would be appropriate. W hen asked by the
judge about the likelihood of Defendant receiving appropriate medical treatment
in M exico, counsel simply indicated that Defendant “could get” in M exico the
same medication that he was already receiving in custody. Defendant submitted
evidence regarding the general inadequacy of prisons to deal with mentally ill
prisoners, but the record supports a conclusion that Defendant himself was
receiving adequate treatment. We thus conclude that Defendant’s condition did
not justify a lower sentence than would normally be appropriate and, accordingly,
that any error in the district court’s statement did not affect Defendant’s
substantial rights. Furthermore, we note that the district court carefully
-3-
considered Defendant’s psychiatric history, the possibility that his mental
disorder might have been caused by drug abuse, and the § 3553(a) factors before
imposing a sentence. W e therefore conclude that Defendant’s sentence is
procedurally reasonable.
Defendant argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it
is excessive under the circumstances of the case. W hen a sentence, as here, is
within the Guidelines, it is presumed reasonable and is reviewed for
unreasonableness under the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United
States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1054-55 (10th Cir. 2006). For the reasons
discussed above, we conclude that Defendant has not rebutted his Guidelines
sentence’s presumption of reasonableness. Defendant’s mental disorder is being
appropriately treated, and he does not argue that his sentence is unreasonable for
any other reason. Even without the Kristl presumption, we would still conclude
that D efendant’s sentence is reasonable in light of all of the § 3553(a) factors.
Accord United States v. Ruiz-Terrazas, 477 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRM ED.
Entered for the Court
M onroe G. M cKay
Circuit Judge
-4-