FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
July 15, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 07-4274
v. District of Utah
JUAN CARLOS SEGOVIA- (D.C. No. 2:07-CR-102-TS-1)
AGUILAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, KELLY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Juan Carlos Segovia-Aguilar pleaded guilty to
possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, and aggravated reentry of a deported alien. The advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range was calculated at 78–97 months; Mr. Segovia-
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is
therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not
binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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.
Aguilar requested a below-Guidelines sentence of 60 months, which was the
statutory minimum for one of the counts. He was sentenced to 78 months, to be
followed by 48 months of supervised release. He now challenges that sentence
for substantive unreasonableness.
Mr. Segovia-Aguilar concedes that the Guidelines range was correctly
calculated and that the district court addressed, on the record, all of the
sentencing factors raised by the defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum. He
contends, however, that the 78-month sentence is substantively unreasonable, in
light of his youth, lack of education, and financial support of his family in
Mexico, and the “poignant” fact that he will be deported following his prison
term.
A correctly calculated, procedurally reasonable, within-Guidelines sentence
is entitled on appeal to a presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Angel-
Guzman, 506 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 2007). While not a rubber stamp, appellate
review of sentencing decisions is deferential. Mr. Segovia-Aguilar made
essentially the same arguments in mitigation of his sentence to the district court
that he makes on appeal, the district court accorded those arguments due
consideration, and the court rendered a sentence at the bottom of the
recommended range. It did not abuse its discretion.
-2-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah
is therefore AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Michael W. McConnell
Circuit Judge
-3-