[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 20, 2007
No. 07-11015
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-14059-CR-JEM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID ALEJANDRO CUBAS-PERDOMO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(July 20, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant is a citizen of Honduras. On March 5, 1999, after having been
convicted in Florida of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft and having served
time in prison for those crimes, appellant was deported to Honduras. On
September 18, 2006, he was arrested in Fort Pierce, Florida for driving with a
suspended license. The police notified U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement of his arrest and, on October 19, 2006, a Southern District of Florida
grand jury indicted him for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2), for illegal re-entry
following a conviction for an aggravated felony and deportation.
On November 30, 2006, appellant pled guilty of that offense, and on
February 21, 2007, the district court sentenced him to prison for a term of 46
months. He now appeals his sentence, contending that it is unreasonable because
it is “unreasonably harsh in light of the purposes for sentences set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).” Appt’s Br. at 9.
The Sentencing Guidelines prescribed a prison sentence of 41-51 months in
this case.1 The court imposed a sentence midway in that range. It did so after
treating the Guidelines as advisory, explicitly taking into account the sentencing
purposes of § 3553(a)(2), especially (a)(2)(A), (B), and (C), and hearing what
1
This sentence range reflected an adjusted offense level of 21 and a criminal history
category of II.
2
appellant had to say. The purpose set out in (A) is “to reflect the seriousness of
the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the
offense.” The purpose in (B) is “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct.” The purpose in (C) is “to protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant.” The court’s comments at sentencing indicated that the court
considered the need of the sentence to deter future unlawful activity, the (B) and
(C) purposes, and to promote respect for the law, one of the (A) purposes.
Regarding the latter, the court was concerned about appellant’s “unwillingness to
abide by rules and regulations.” Appellant claims that the court failed adequately
to take into account his minimal criminal record, no history of violence, his youth
at the time he committed the burglary and grand theft offenses, his parents’ United
States citizenship, his upbringing in this country, and his fear of gang activity in
Honduras. The court considered these circumstances in fashioning appellant’s
sentence. That it did not give them the weight appellant desired was a matter
committed to the court’s sound discretion.
Appellant has not shown that his sentence is unreasonable. It is therefore
AFFIRMED.
3