[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 8, 2007
No. 06-13298 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-20083-CR-FAM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAZMIN LAZO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 8, 2007)
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jazmin Lazo appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty plea to one
count of re-entering the United States after being deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326. Lazo contends her sentence is unreasonable.
We review sentences for reasonableness in light of the factors listed in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 765-66 (2005). Post-
Booker, we have established a two-part process for district courts to use in
fashioning sentences. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir. 2005).
First, the court must consult and correctly determine the sentence range prescribed
by the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. Here, the district court correctly calculated
Lazo’s Guidelines range.
Second, the court must fashion a reasonable sentence by considering the
factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. Included among the factors are
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (2) the history and characteristics
of the defendant; (3) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote
respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (4) the need for
deterrence; (5) the need to protect the public; (6) the Sentencing Guidelines range;
and (7) the need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Lazo’s 41-month sentence is at the bottom of the Guidelines range. See
Talley, 431 F.3d at 787-88 (11th Cir. 2005) (rejecting the notion that a sentence
2
within the Guidelines is per se reasonable, but acknowledging “there is a range of
reasonable sentences from which the district court may choose, and when the
district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, [we]
ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one."). In fashioning this
sentence, the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and specifically
referenced several of them. Although the district court acknowledged Lazo
returned to the United States to see her children and that re-entering the United
States is not as serious an offense as others, the court also acknowledged the
seriousness of Lazo’s criminal history of drug trafficking and her disrespect for the
law by failing to appear for deportation. While Lazo argues her sentence is
unreasonable in light of her relationship with her daughters, the Sentencing
Guidelines policy statement provides that a defendant’s “family ties and
responsibilities are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure may
be warranted.” U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6. A policy statement issued by the Sentencing
Commission is one of the 3553(a) factors the district court must consider. 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5)(A).
Additionally, Lazo’s argument that the maximum allowable sentence is set
by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and may be below the Guidelines range fails. The
“parsimony provision” provides a sentence shall be “sufficient, but not greater than
3
necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in [3553(a)(2)].” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). However, the maximum allowable sentence is the sentence established
by the corresponding criminal statute. See United States v. Duncan, 400 F.3d
1297, 1303 (11th Cir. 2005). Lazo’s sentence is well under the statutory maximum
of 20 years’ imprisonment. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). It cannot be said that the
district court fashioned a sentence that is greater than necessary to comply with the
purpose of § 3553(a)(2).
The district court correctly calculated Lazo’s Guidelines range, considered
the § 3553(a) factors, and arrived at a sentence at the low-end of the advisory
Guidelines range. We conclude that Lazo’s sentence is reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
4