NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 17-1195
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JUAN CARLOS ANGUIANO-GUERRERO,
a/k/a JUAN CARLOS ANGUIANO
Juan Carlos Anguiano-Guerrero,
Appellant
________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 5-16-cr-00302-001)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph F. Leeson, Junior
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 14, 2017
Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 7, 2017)
________________
OPINION *
________________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Juan Carlos Anguiano-Guerrero (“Anguiano”) is a native and citizen of Mexico.
He has two children, Jonathon Anguiano and Dalton Anguiano, who are both American
citizens. He was married to an American citizen, Heather Guerrero, though they are now
divorced. During the marriage she filed a “petition for alien relative” on Anguiano’s
behalf, and the Department of Homeland Security waived Anguiano’s inadmissibility
relating to his illegal entry to the United States. He became a legal permanent resident on
November 23, 2004.
A year later, Anguiano was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for fatally
shooting a man during a fight. Despite his legal permanent resident status, the conviction
made him deportable. After serving his sentence, he was deported to Mexico. Three
months later, he was taken into custody by ICE agents near Mission, Texas, charged and
convicted with illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and sentenced to 42
months’ imprisonment. After serving his sentence, he was again deported. Then, about
two years later, on June 29, 2016, Anguiano was taken into custody by ICE agents in
Pottstown, Pennsylvania, and again charged with illegal reentry.
In its presentence report, the Probation Office found that the base offense level for
the § 1326(a) violation was eight. It applied a four-level enhancement because Anguiano
had a previous conviction for illegal reentry, a ten-level enhancement for his prior
manslaughter conviction, and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
Thus Anguiano was left with a total offense level of nineteen. His prior convictions
resulted in six criminal history points and placed him in criminal history category III,
2
with an advisory Guidelines range of 37-46 months’ imprisonment. This range was
undisputed and applied by the District Court at sentencing.
After reviewing the § 3553(a) factors and considering arguments from counsel
regarding an appropriate sentence, the Court sentenced Anguiano to 46 months in prison,
at the high end of the Guidelines range. Anguiano appeals this sentence, arguing that the
Court committed procedural error by failing to acknowledge four arguments he made in
his sentencing memorandum for imposing a sentence at the lower end of the range.
Anguiano, however, failed to object to his sentence at trial, and so we must review
for plain error. See United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253, 255 (3d Cir. 2014)
(“[W]hen a party wishes to take an appeal based on a procedural error at sentencing—
such as the court’s failure to meaningfully consider that party’s argument or to explain
one or more aspects of the sentence imposed—that party must object to the procedural
error complained of after sentence is imposed in order to avoid plain error review on
appeal.”). An error is plain if it is “clear” or “obvious,” “affects substantial rights,” and
“seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
United States v. Dragon, 471 F.3d 501, 505 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v.
Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)).
The Government asked the Court to impose a sentence at the high end of the
Guidelines range, reasoning that this was Anguiano’s third illegal reentry and he had not
been deterred by his previous sentences of four years for manslaughter and 42 months for
a separate occurrence of illegal reentry.
3
Anguiano asked the Court to impose a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines
range, listing four arguments in support of his request: (1) his good character; (2) the
circumstances and timing of his manslaughter conviction; (3) “harder” prison conditions
relating to his immigration detainer; and (4) a lack of motivation to return to the United
States.
Our Court presumes a sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable. Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007). Rita also clarified the nature of the requirement
that a sentencing judge state his or her reasons for the sentence in the order or opinion
and they need not be long or detailed. A short statement of reasons is perfectly sufficient,
especially when a party’s arguments are straightforward and conceptually simple. Id. at
356. “Circumstances may well make clear” the basis for the decision and in such cases
“the judge normally need say no more.” Id.
Here, the District Court articulated reasons sufficient to assure the public and the
parties that the sentencing process was a reasoned process. It addressed Anguiano’s
sentencing arguments that were non-frivolous and had a factual basis, but cited his
manslaughter conviction, criminal history, and children as reasons that he was likely to
reenter the United States. The Court noted he was not deterred by prior prison sentences
and returned almost immediately after being deported. It reasoned that, without a long
sentence, there was a high risk of recidivism given his family ties to the United States.
As to the remaining sentencing arguments made by Anguiano, the Court did not
need to address them, as they were not supported by a factual basis in the record.
Anguiano cited his financial support of his children as evidence of his good character, but
4
because he spent much of his time incarcerated and provided little to no evidence of this
financial support, the Court did not need to address this claim. Anguiano also argued that
he would not be afforded the same opportunities in prison as an American citizen and
therefore should receive a lighter sentence. Because he was not treated differently from
similarly situated non-citizens who have illegally reentered the country after deportation,
his claim lacks merit.
As such, it is clear from the record that the District Court listened, understood, and
considered Anguiano’s arguments in imposing a sentence that was at the high end of the
Guidelines range. There is no error here, plain or otherwise. Accordingly, we affirm.
5