[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
June 9, 2006
No. 05-16301 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 00-00152-CR-01-JOF-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHNNY MEDRANO RIVERA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(June 9, 2006)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Medrano Rivera appeals his sentence of 18 months of imprisonment
for violation of the terms of his supervised release when he was found to be in the
United States illegally. Rivera argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We
affirm.
Rivera, a citizen of El Salvador, pleaded guilty in federal district court in
Georgia in April 2000, to unlawful reentry of a deported alien. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b).
He was sentenced to 57 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised
release with the special condition that he not be found in the United States illegally
or violate the law. Upon the completion of his term of imprisonment, Rivera was
deported to El Salvador.
Rivera reentered the United States in April 2005, and he was arrested in
Texas where he was convicted of illegal reentry and sentenced to 20 months of
imprisonment. Rivera was then taken to federal district court in Georgia where he
admitted that he violated the special conditions of his supervised release by
reentering the United States illegally. The United States requested a 24-month
sentence consecutive to the sentence imposed in Texas. Rivera requested
mitigation of his sentence on the following four grounds: (1) the district court in
Texas had imposed a 20-month sentence for Rivera’s 2005 illegal reentry; (2)
Rivera entered the United States out of fear of threats by individuals who had
killed his father and brother; (3) the sentencing guidelines are advisory post-United
2
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005); and (4) Rivera had
immediately surrendered himself to border patrol agents upon his illegal reentry in
2005.
The district court observed that Rivera had been deported three times and
this was his second illegal reentry after deportation. The district court also
expressed concern that Rivera’s sentence for his second illegal reentry would be
shorter than the sentence for his first illegal reentry. The district court imposed an
18-month sentence on Rivera for violation of his supervised release to be served
consecutive to his 20-month sentence for illegal reentry imposed by the district
court in Texas.
Our review of a sentence for reasonableness is deferential. United States v.
Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 785 (11th Cir. 2005). The burden is on Rivera to establish
that his sentence is unreasonable. Id. at 788. At sentencing, the district court must
consider, among other factors, “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
history and characteristics of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1).
Rivera argues that his 18-month sentence for revocation of his supervised
release is unreasonable for two reasons. First, Rivera argues that the consecutive
sentence is unreasonable because he had already been punished by the district court
in Texas for his illegal reentry and that he had accepted responsibility for that
3
reentry. Second, Rivera argues that he engaged in no new criminal activity after
his reentry, he surrendered to the border patrol immediately upon crossing the
border, and he returned to the United States to escape the threats against him in El
Salvador.
Rivera’s arguments fail. It was reasonable for the district court to impose a
sentence on Rivera consecutive to his sentence for his second illegal reentry.
United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2006). At the
sentencing hearing, the district court considered factors surrounding Rivera’s
offense and his history and characteristics. The district court explicitly considered,
but did not give credence to, Rivera’s explanation that he fled to the United States
because of threats against him. The district court also commented that Rivera was
on a “merry-go-round” of conviction for illegal reentry, deportation, and later
illegal reentry. Although the district court did not address each of the mitigating
facts raised by Rivera, the district court need not state specifically that it has
considered each factor or discuss each factor individually. United States v. Scott,
426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
4