FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 24, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 15-2027
(D.C. No. 2:14-CR-02443-KG-1)
ALEJANDRO SOTO-ROBLEDO, (D. New Mexico)
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Mr. Alejandro Soto-Robledo was convicted of illegal reentry into the
United States and sentenced to 57 months in prison, which represented the bottom
of the guideline range. Mr. Soto-Robledo appeals this sentence on the ground that
it is substantively unreasonable. We disagree and affirm.
*
The parties have not requested oral argument, and the Court concludes that
oral argument would not materially aid our consideration of the appeal. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thus, we have decided the appeal based on
the briefs.
Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Fed. R. App. P.
32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
In reviewing the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we apply the
abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Martinez-Barragan, 545 F.3d 894,
905 (10th Cir. 2008). The district court has the discretion to impose a sentence
unless it is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable. United
States v. Haley, 529 F.3d 1308, 1311 (10th Cir. 2008). In our view, the 57-month
sentence was not arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.
We presume the sentence is reasonable because it fell within the guideline
range. See United States v. Gambino-Zavala, 539 F.3d 1221, 1232 (10th Cir.
2008). In attempting to overcome this presumption, Mr. Soto-Robledo argues that
the district court (1) unreasonably inflated the guideline range 16 levels based on
a prior drug conviction and (2) gave inadequate consideration to mitigating
factors, such as Mr. Soto-Robledo’s assimilation into U.S. culture. We reject
these arguments.
“We have consistently observed that reentry of an ex-felon is a serious
offense.” Martinez-Barragan, 545 F.3d at 905. Thus, we have rejected similar
challenges to the guidelines’ 16-level enhancement for previous drug convictions.
E.g., United States v. Alvarez-Bernabe, 626 F.3d 1161, 1165-66 (10th Cir. 2010);
see also United States v. Torres-Duenas, 461 F.3d 1178, 1180-83 (10th Cir. 2006)
(upholding a 41-month sentence for illegal reentry based in part on a 16-level
enhancement for a prior conviction). Based on this precedent, the district court
2
could reasonably rely on the 16-level enhancement to arrive at an appropriate
sentence.
Mr. Soto-Robledo relies not only on the alleged unfairness of the 16-level
enhancement, but also on the alleged failure to adequately consider mitigating
factors. According to Mr. Soto-Robledo, these factors deserved greater weight.
But the district court has the discretion to balance mitigating factors, such as
cultural assimilation. See United States v. Galarza-Payan, 441 F.3d 885, 889-90
(10th Cir. 2006) (holding that a 57-month sentence for illegal reentry was
substantively reasonable, rejecting the defendant’s effort to rebut the presumption
of reasonableness based on evidence of cultural assimilation); see also Alvarez-
Bernabe, 626 F.3d at 1167 (holding that a 57-month sentence for illegal reentry
was substantively reasonable). In our view, the district court did not act
arbitrarily, capriciously, whimsically, or unreasonably by balancing the mitigating
factors as it did.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
3