[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
May 9, 2007
No. 06-16320 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00199-CR-MHS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAULINO MERCADO PATINO,
a.k.a. Cesar Perez Gomez
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(April 9, 2007)
Before DUBINA, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Paulino Mercado Patino (“Patino”) appeals his 87-month sentence for illegal
reentry into the United States by a deported alien. On appeal, Patino argues that
his sentence is unreasonable because: (1) the district court relied on an
impermissible factor, namely, the government’s recommendation to sentence him
to the high end of the guideline range; (2) the court did not adequately consider the
mitigating factors; and (3) his sentence was greater than necessary to comply with
the statutory purposes of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We review the final sentence imposed by the district court for
reasonableness. United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1245-46 (11th Cir.
2005). Having reviewed the record in this case, we find no reversible error.
Among other considerations, the district court adequately considered the § 3553(a)
factors and imposed a sentence that was reasonable on the facts of this case. The
court explained that it imposed a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range
because the sentence “sufficiently punish[ed] [Patino] for his criminal conduct.”
The court stated that it had considered Patino’s violent background and the need
for the sentence to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, to promote
respect for the law, and to protect the public from further crimes by the defendant.
We also reject as meritless Patino’s argument that the district court
considered as an impermissible factor its initial belief that the government was
going to recommend a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range.
Furthermore, we find no merit in Patino’s claim that the district court violated
§ 3553(c)(1).
AFFIRMED.
2