Case: 14-14415 Date Filed: 04/27/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14415
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80129-KLR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
YONIS ERNESTO VILLATORO-ORDONEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 27, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-14415 Date Filed: 04/27/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Defendant Yonis Villatoro-Ordonez pled guilty to illegal reentry after
deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He now appeals his 6-month,
within-guideline range sentence.1 On appeal, Defendant argues that the district
court procedurally erred in imposing his sentence by failing to consider all the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. After review, we affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion using
a two-step process. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008).
We look first to whether the district court committed any significant procedural
error and then at whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the
totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 2 Id. The party
challenging the sentence bears the burden of showing that it is unreasonable. Id. at
1189. On appeal, Defendant challenges his sentence only on procedural
reasonableness grounds.
1
Although Defendant was released from prison on January 12, 2015, his appeal is not
moot because he is still serving a one-year supervised release term. See Dawson v. Scott, 50
F.3d 884, 886 n.2 (11th Cir. 1995).
2
The § 3553(a) 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 unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to
victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
2
Case: 14-14415 Date Filed: 04/27/2015 Page: 3 of 4
The district court commits a significant procedural error by miscalculating
the advisory guideline range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to
consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous
facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Id. at 1190. While a
failure to consider the § 3553(a) factors constitutes procedural error, a district court
is not required “to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the
§ 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v.
Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005). An acknowledgment that the court
has considered the defendant’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors is adequate.
Id. at 1330.
Here, Defendant has not shown that his sentence is procedurally
unreasonable. Contrary to Defendant’s argument, the district court did consider
the § 3553(a) factors before imposing sentence. The record reflects that the district
court placed substantial weight on Defendant’s history of prior illegal reentries and
on the need to deter Defendant from committing further criminal conduct:
specifically, discouraging his pattern of continuing to illegally reenter the United
States after being deported. In doing so, the court noted that, despite having been
deported twice in the prior two years and having previously been sentenced to time
3
Case: 14-14415 Date Filed: 04/27/2015 Page: 4 of 4
served 3—the same sentence Defendant was requesting in the present case—
Defendant had been undeterred and had continued to illegally reenter the United
States. The court also addressed the § 3553 factor that Defendant argued should
control: the violent conditions in El Salvador and the fact that his wife and child 4
lived in the United States. It, however, rejected this factor as justifying
Defendant’s illegal reentry or a lower sentence.
Further, the district court explicitly acknowledged that it had considered the
parties’ arguments at sentencing and that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors.
The fact that the court emphasized particular factors—the need to deter Defendant
from continuing to illegally reenter the United States and his past history of illegal
reentry—does not mean that it failed to consider all the factors or that the sentence
was unreasonable. See United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1324 (11th Cir.
2008) (the fact that the sentencing court emphasizes one § 3553 factor as most
important does not mean that it has failed to consider all the factors).
Consequently, the district court did not procedurally err in sentencing Defendant.
AFFIRMED.
3
At the time of sentencing, Defendant had served almost two months, which was within
Defendant’s guideline range of one to seven months’ imprisonment.
4
Defendant married his wife while he was illegally in this country and the child of that
union was also born while Defendant was here illegally.
4