Case: 15-10641 Date Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10641
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20778-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE JESUS AGUILAR MEZA,
a.k.a. Jose Aguilar de Jesus,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 21, 2015)
Before HULL, MARTIN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10641 Date Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Jose Jesus Aguilar Meza appeals his 84-month sentence, imposed within the
advisory Guidelines range, 1 after he pleaded guilty to re-entering the United States
after having been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). On appeal,
Aguilar Meza argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the
district court failed to give sufficient weight to his rehabilitative efforts, the non-
violent nature of his offense, and his reasons for re-entering the United States, and
improperly emphasized his criminal history. After careful review, we find no
reversible error and affirm.
Our review of the reasonableness of a sentence is a two-step process. First,
we ensure that the district court committed no “significant procedural error.”
United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008). “A sentence may be
procedurally unreasonable if the district court improperly calculates the Guidelines
range, treats the Guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory, fails to consider the
appropriate statutory factors, selects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or
fails to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United States v. Gonzalez, 550
F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citing Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007)).
Second, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Livesay, 525 F.3d 1081,
1
Aguilar Meza’s advisory Guidelines range was 70–87 months.
2
Case: 15-10641 Date Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 3 of 4
1091 (11th Cir. 2008). We may not vacate a sentence simply “because we would
have decided that another one is more appropriate.” United States v. Irey, 612
F.3d 1160, 1191 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Instead, we must be “left with the
definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of
judgment . . . by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable
sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1191 (quotation
omitted).
To begin, Aguilar Meza does not argue that the district court committed any
procedural error, and we find none. And although we may, perhaps, have decided
that another sentence was more appropriate, we are not left with the “definite and
firm conviction” that his sentence is substantively unreasonable under our
deferential standard of review. Id. While Aguilar Meza argues the district court
failed to give due consideration to his characteristics and background, the court
expressly stated that it had considered his reason for illegally reentering the United
States, which was to be closer to his wife and seven children, and that he did not
have any recent violent offenses in his criminal history. However, the court also
explained that, in light of Aguilar Meza’s repeated attempts to illegally re-enter the
United States—including an unprosecuted attempt just one year earlier—a within-
Guidelines sentence was necessary to provide deterrence and promote respect for
3
Case: 15-10641 Date Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 4 of 4
the law. Aguilar Meza has not shown that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
4