Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-19-2007
USA v. Aperecida-Bravim
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4430
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Aperecida-Bravim" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 32.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/32
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
______
No. 06-4430
______
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee
v.
MARIA APERECIDA BRAVIM,
Appellant
Appeal from the
United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 01-cr-00527)
District Judge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 11, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI*, Judge
(Filed: December 19, 2007)
OPINION
RESTANI, Judge.
*
Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
In this appeal, Defendant Maria Aperecida Bravim challenges her sentence upon
conviction of a crime. Defendant pled guilty to bribing an immigration official in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1) and was sentenced to a two-year term of imprisonment.
We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
After her arrest, defendant initially cooperated with authorities in their endeavors
to apprehend others in connection with the bribery scheme. The government agreed that
if she fulfilled her obligations under her Cooperation Agreement, including refraining
from violations of law, it would request a downward departure from the United States
Sentencing Guidelines calculation that would otherwise apply. Defendant, however,
breached her pre-trial release order and absconded to Brazil. She was apprehended after
remaining a fugitive for more than three years. Defendant was then indicted for contempt
and other crimes related to witness retaliation. The government declined to recommend
downward departure.
The District Court accepted the recommendation of the presentence report for
application of an obstruction of justice enhancement. Over the government’s objection,
the Court allowed the full three-point downward adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility, resulting in a Guidelines range of twenty-four to thirty months. It is
unclear if the defendant actually challenges the obstruction of justice enhancement, but
under these facts, the District Court judge did not abuse his discretion in imposing it. The
acceptance of responsibility adjustment enured to defendant’s benefit. Therefore, there is
no ground for disagreement with the Guidelines calculation, as such. Further, under these
2
facts, the government was not required to request a downward departure.
The remainder of defendant’s argument is essentially that the sentence was
unreasonable, either because the District Court did not depart downward or because it did
not apply the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors properly. Defendant, however, is hard-pressed
to argue that the statutory factors were not considered. They were argued and the Court
clearly indicated it was aware of and considered all of them. There is nothing indicating
that this sentence at the low end of a very leniently calculated Guidelines range was not
reasonable.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
3