Case: 15-14873 Date Filed: 05/27/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14873
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00144-WSD-LTW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS PINEDA-LARA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(May 27, 2016)
Before HULL, MARCUS, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-14873 Date Filed: 05/27/2016 Page: 2 of 3
Carlos Pineda-Lara appeals his 33-month sentence, imposed after he pled
guilty to a single count of illegal re-entry into the United States in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). On appeal, Pineda-Lara argues that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable. We disagree and hold that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing a middle-of-the-guidelines sentence in this case.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007). “The
party challenging the sentence bears the burden to show it is unreasonable in light
of the record and the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Tome, 611
F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
On appeal, Pineda-Lara asserts that the guideline for illegal re-entry is not
based on empirical data and is thus due less deference. He also argues that a 24-
month sentence would have been reasonable because his prior United States
convictions were temporally remote, and the § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of a
lower sentence.
Having considered these arguments, we nevertheless find that Pineda-Lara
has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. As an
initial matter, even assuming that the guideline for illegal re-entry is not based on
empirical data, that fact would not invalidate the guideline or require the district
court to vary downward. See United States v. Snipes, 611 F.3d 855, 870 (11th Cir.
2
Case: 15-14873 Date Filed: 05/27/2016 Page: 3 of 3
2010) (“[T]he absence of empirical evidence is not an independent ground that
compels the invalidation of a guideline.”). Moreover, Pineda-Lara’s repeated re-
entry into the United States and his prior convictions for drug offenses and
inflicting injury upon a child suggest that a sentence within the guideline range was
required to deter Pineda-Lara from further criminal activity, to promote respect for
the law, and to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2); United States v.
Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (noting that the
weight given to any § 3553(a) factor is in “the sound discretion of the district
court” (internal quotation mark omitted)).
Furthermore, Pineda-Lara’s 33-month sentence fell significantly below the
240-month statutory maximum sentence, which indicates its reasonableness. See
United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
Finally, his sentence was imposed in the middle of the advisory guidelines range,
and we accord an expectation of reasonableness to such a sentence. See United
States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008). In the absence of any
convincing argument to the contrary, these indicia of reasonableness provide
strong support to the district court’s sentencing decision.
Therefore, upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs,
we affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.
3