Case: 13-14303 Date Filed: 08/08/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-14303
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cr-14064-DLG-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JUAN MARCELO GUTIERREZ-IXCHIA,
a.k.a. Juan Monterroso-Guiterez,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 8, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-14303 Date Filed: 08/08/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Juan Marcelo Gutierrez-Ixchia (“Gutierrez”), having pleaded guilty to illegal
reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1), appeals
his sentence of 77 months’ imprisonment. Gutierrez argues his sentence, 60
months of which are to run consecutively to a 15-year state-court sentence, is
procedurally unreasonable. Upon review,1 we reject Gutierrez’s argument and
affirm his sentence.
Gutierrez argues the district committed procedural errors by failing to
consider the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and by failing to explain
the sentence imposed. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)
(providing examples of procedural sentencing errors). More specifically, in the
latter respect Gutierrez contends the district court did not adequately explain why it
rejected his arguments concerning his criminal history and the costs of his
incarceration. Each of Gutierrez’s arguments is without merit. The district court
expressly stated it “considered the statements of all parties . . . and the statutory
factors,” and this is sufficient. See United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th
Cir. 2005) (“[A]n acknowledgment by the district court that it has considered the
defendant’s arguments and the factors in section 3553(a) is sufficient . . . .”),
abrogated on other grounds by Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007). A court
1
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of discretion
standard. United States v. Thompson, 702 F.3d 604, 606-07 (11th Cir. 2012). “The party
challenging the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable.”
United States v. Bane, 720 F.3d 818, 824 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
Case: 13-14303 Date Filed: 08/08/2014 Page: 3 of 3
need not discuss each factor individually. Id.; see also United States v. Scott, 426
F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005). Moreover, although not required, the district
court elaborated on its reasoning by stating that its decision was based in part on
the serious crimes Gutierrez had committed after returning to the United States and
not his improper return alone. This discussion further demonstrates that the district
court considered Gutierrez’s arguments for leniency and committed no procedural
error.
AFFIRMED.
3