[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 17, 2008
No. 07-14315
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00084-CR-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAUL CAZARES MENDOZA,
a.k.a. Adrian Casurez Mendoza,
a.k.a. Raul Mendoza-Cazares,
a.k.a. Juan Daniel Mendoza,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(June 17, 2008)
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Raul Cazares Mendoza appeals his sentence of 144 months of imprisonment
for possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and
illegal reentry into the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2); 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II). Mendoza argues that his sentence is procedurally and
substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Mendoza, a Mexican citizen, was arrested after police officers discovered
drugs in Mendoza’s vehicle during a traffic stop. Mendoza was charged in a two-
count indictment for possession with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of
cocaine and illegal reentry as a previously deported illegal alien. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2); 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II). Mendoza entered a
blind plea of guilty to both counts. The district court explained to Mendoza during
the plea colloquy that the sentencing guidelines were advisory and the court could
impose a sentence for his drug offense up to the statutory maximum of life
imprisonment. The district court accepted Mendoza’s pleas of guilty.
The presentence investigation report provided a sentencing range between
121 and 151 months of imprisonment. The report stated that Mendoza had
illegally entered the United States on five occasions before his current illegal
reentry. Mendoza asked the court to credit him for five additional months that he
2
served in a Mexican prison after he completed a 70-month sentence for earlier
convictions related to his possession and distribution of methamphetamine.
Mendoza requested that the court impose the statutory minimum sentence of 120
months of imprisonment.
The district court sentenced Mendoza to two concurrent terms of 144 months
of imprisonment followed by terms of five and three years of supervised probation.
The court explained that “[t]he maximum guideline range would be 151 months;
and in figuring the 144, [it had] taken into account . . . the 5 months [Mendoza]
served on a prior sentence in Mexico.” The court also explained that the sentence,
which was “a little bit above the mandatory minimum, little bit below the
maximum” served as a “deterrent to future criminal activity; punish[ed] the
defendant certainly appropriately and protect[ed] the public.” Mendoza objected to
the sentence as unreasonable and stated that “a sentence at the low end of the
guideline range, 121 months [was] appropriate.”
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the final sentence imposed by the district court for
reasonableness. United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir. 2005).
Review for reasonableness is a deferential standard of review for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007).
3
III. DISCUSSION
Mendoza argues that his sentence is unreasonable. Mendoza argues that the
district court “failed to take into account the parsimony principle [of section
3553(a)] when imposing sentence” and his sentence is procedurally unreasonable
because the district court did not adequately explain why it did not impose a lesser
sentence or mention a “factor in aggravation” to justify the sentence imposed.
Mendoza also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Mendoza
within the guideline range. Mendoza has not established that the district court
committed a procedural error. The district court considered the statutory factors
and purposes of sentencing and reasonably determined that a sentence of 144
months of imprisonment was sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve
those purposes. 28 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. Although “[w]e do
not in this circuit presume reasonable a sentence within the properly calculated
Guidelines range,” United States v. Campbell, 491 F.3d 1306, 1313 (11th Cir.
2007), Mendoza’s sentence is substantively reasonable. The district court
explained that the sentence served the statutory purposes of deterrence, adequate
punishment, and protection of the public. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. Mendoza
had illegally entered the United States on five occasions and committed several
4
drug crimes while in this country, and the district court took into consideration that
Mendoza spent five additional months in a Mexican prison for his previous drug
conviction. Mendoza’s sentence is reasonable.
IV. CONCLUSION
Mendoza’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
5