FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 19, 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v. No. 14-1434
(D.C. No. 1:12-CR-00438-JLK-2)
SERGIO ALONSO MENDOZA- (D. Colo.)
HURTADO,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
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). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant and Appellant, Sergio Mendoza-Hurtado, appeals the 70-month
sentence imposed on him following his plea of guilty to conspiracy to distribute
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
500 or more grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and
846. Finding his sentence substantively reasonable, we affirm.
We need not detail the facts concerning this case, inasmuch as they support
the government’s description that Mr. Mendoza-Hurtado “helped negotiate the
sale and delivery of 15 kilograms of methamphetamine between a confidential
informant in the United States and a supplier in Mexico.” Appellee’s Br. at 1.
Mr. Mendoza-Hurtado himself admits his “role in this offense was to be the
intermediary between the source of supply and the buyer.” Appellant’s Br. at 6.
This was Mr. Mendoza-Hurtado’s first conviction. He is a Mexican national who
has spent most of his life in Durango, Mexico, having entered the United States
apparently not long prior to the instant offense. 1
In anticipation of sentencing under the United States Sentencing
Commission, Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.”), the PSR calculated an advisory
Guidelines sentencing range of 135-168 months, but recommended a below-
Guidelines sentence of 72 months. In the plea agreement, both the government
and Mr. Mendoza-Hurtado contemplated a sentencing range of 108-135 months.
They also acknowledged there was a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of
1
The presentence report (“PSR”) prepared by the United States Probation
Office in preparation for sentencing states that “[p]rior to his arrest in the instant
offense, the defendant was residing with his wife at an unknown hotel in the
Denver metropolitan area for approximately 10 days. They had been renting a
home in . . . Durango, Mexico, for approximately eight years. He intends to
return to that area upon his release from custody.” PSR at ¶ 45; R. Vol. 2 at 25.
-2-
ten years, which all parties agreed would not apply due to Mr. Mendoza-
Hurtado’s eligibility for a safety-valve reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and
U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. The government then agreed with the PSR’s recommendation
of a 72-month sentence.
Mr. Mendoza-Hurtado filed a motion requesting a below-Guidelines
sentence and, at his sentencing hearing on October 2, 2014, he requested a
sentence of time served, which would have amounted to approximately 24
months, based upon his claim that his involvement in the instant offense was
limited, he was unaware of the nature of the drugs involved, and his overall
situation, as discussed more fully below, compelled a reduced sentence. The
government adhered to a 72-month sentence, stating that such a sentence “while a
significant departure from whatever the guideline calculation turns out to be, still
is appropriate because . . . while not the top of the pinnacle in this case, this
defendant certainly was of more culpability than the two individuals who were
transporting the methamphetamine on his . . . behalf.” Tr. of Sentencing Hr’g at
4; R. Vol. 3 at 21.
The district court determined that the advisory sentencing range was 108-
135 months, but sentenced Mr. Mendoza-Hurtado to 70 months, with “credit for
time already served on this case which as of today amounts to 730 days [24
months].” Tr. of Sentencing Hr’g at 18; R. Vol. 3 at 35. The district court
explained its sentencing decision as follows:
-3-
The defendant’s motion for sentencing below the guidelines
. . . has been granted. The government’s motion for a non-guideline
sentence has likewise been granted.
And I am trying to come to grips with how to explain
something to you. You didn’t know about these drugs and what they
were when you did this for $2,000, but you did know that you were
doing something wrong. You did know that. And when you shake
hands with the devil, you don’t know where it’s going to take you.
It’s taken you on a long, bad trip.
Id. at 13-14; R. Vol. 3 at 30-31. The court thus indicated its awareness of Mr.
Mendoza-Hurtado’s claimed lesser role and lack of awareness of the severity of
his offense. The court then considered other factors:
I appreciate the fact that you have cooperated with the
authorities, in particularly that you have tried to save some other
people . . . . But the other factors that I am thinking of is the
disastrous effects that this has had on your health. Your health and
your heart are both broken and this is where we end up.
I also remember vividly the efforts you made and the broken
heart that you have because of the difficulties and suffering that were
caused to your wife by having her be brought into this terrible
experience.
All of those things bring a sense of compassion to my
sentencing, but I also have the other side that I have to deal with in
sentencing you and that is that we are dealing with amphetamines, a
very dangerous drug. And while I understand what your attorney,
Mr. Barnard, is saying – and incidentally, he has done an excellent
job for you. You were facing more than 10 years imprisonment. He
has done a very good job in representing you.
I disagree with his argument about the quality of meth,
however, because to me saying you had nothing to do with the
quality of the meth tells me one of two things, and that’s that you – I
don’t know whether it speaks well or ill of you. On the one hand,
you are acting as a middleman on something that you don’t know
-4-
about is a sign of reckless indifference to what it does to other
people, so that’s not much better than intentionally trying to give
people polluted substances.
The other is that, as I have said, your attorney has already
accomplished a great deal in avoiding this minimum mandatory
sentence and the government has done something in looking at your
case in that regard. But here is the thing. I cannot send a message
back to Durango that the U.S. laws have no teeth.
Id. at 14-15; R. Vol. 3 at 31-32 (emphasis added). The court then sentenced Mr.
Mendoza-Hurtado to a significantly below-Guideline sentence of 70 months, with,
as indicated above, credit for time served. This appeal followed.
Mr. Mendoza-Hurtado challenges the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence. “[S]ubstantive reasonableness addresses whether the length of the
sentence is reasonable given all the circumstances of the case in light of the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Damato, 672 F.3d 832,
838 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review substantive
reasonableness claims for abuse of discretion, id., “afford[ing] substantial
deference to [the] district court[].” United States v. Smart, 518 F.3d 800, 806
(10th Cir. 2008). We find an abuse of discretion only if the district court was
“arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable” when it weighed
the “permissible § 3553(a) factors in light of the totality of the circumstances.”
United States v. Sayad, 589 F.3d 1110, 1116, 1118 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotations
omitted); see also United States v. Reyes-Alfonso, 653 F.3d 1137, 1145 (10th Cir.
2011) (“In many cases there will be a range of possible outcomes the facts and
-5-
law at issue can fairly support; rather than pick and choose among them
ourselves, we will defer to the district court’s judgment so long as it falls within
the realm of these rationally available choices.” (quotations and alterations
omitted)). Furthermore, a sentence below the properly-calculated advisory
Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Balbin-Mesa, 643
F.3d 783, 788 (10th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Trent, 767 F.3d 1046,
1051 (10th Cir. 2014) (holding that a below-Guidelines sentence is
“presumptively reasonable against an attack by a defendant claiming that the
sentence is too high”). Mr. Mendoza-Hurtado may rebut that presumption, but
“[t]hat burden is a hefty one” under our deferential abuse-of-discretion standard
of review. United States v. Verdin-Garcia, 516 F.3d 884, 898 (10th Cir. 2008).
Mr. Mendoza-Hurtado argues with considerable vigor that the
circumstances surrounding his background and condition, including his age, his
impoverished and deprived upbringing, his poor health, his lack of a criminal
background, his alien status, and his family support, as well as the details
regarding his offense of conviction, including his claimed unawareness of the
nature of the methamphetamine involved, his cooperation, and the crime’s effect
on his family, compel a lower sentence. Nonetheless, as the excerpts above
indicate, the district court was acutely aware of all of those circumstances. It
gave him a below-Guideline sentence, and brought a “sense of compassion” in
selecting that sentence. The court clearly weighed the numerous sentencing
-6-
factors applicable in this case, and reached a decision which reflected all those
factors. We cannot say that the sentence selected is unreasonable. Mr. Mendoza-
Hurtado has failed to rebut its presumptive reasonableness.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the sentence imposed in this case.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-7-