[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-11927
SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-00017-CR-T-23EAJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALEXANDER JUAN-JUAREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 10, 2009)
Before BIRCH, HULL and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Juan-Juarez appeals his eighteen-month sentence, which was
imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) after the revocation of his supervised
release. Juan-Juarez argues that his eighteen-month sentence is both procedurally and
substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
In 2007, Juan-Juarez was convicted of aiding and abetting the transportation of
illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). He was sentenced to eleven
months’ imprisonment, followed by five years’ supervised release with the special
condition that, if deported, he would not re-enter the United States without the express
permission of the United States Department of Homeland Security. In November
2007, Juan-Juarez was released from prison and, on December 20, 2007, he was
deported to Mexico.
On October 15, 2008, Juan-Juarez was arrested for having re-entered the United
States without permission and, in December 2008, he pleaded guilty to this offense
in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The
California district court sentenced Juan-Juarez to 30 months’ imprisonment, followed
by three years’ supervised release. On February 9, 2009, Juan-Juarez’s probation
officer filed in the Middle District of Florida a petition to revoke Juan-Juarez’s
supervised release, because (1) Juan-Juarez was arrested and charged with being an
illegal alien found in the United States following deportation; and (2) Juan-Juarez
failed to notify his probation officer within seventy-two hours of being arrested.
Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a), Juan-Juarez’s applicable guideline imprisonment
2
range was four to ten months and under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the statutory maximum
penalty was three years’ imprisonment.
At the supervised release revocation hearing, Juan-Juarez admitted both
supervised release violations. (R.2-62 at 4.) The court noted that it had clearly
informed Juan-Juarez, during his July 2007 sentencing, that he could not re-enter the
United States without permission. (Id. at 8.) It noted that Juan-Juarez defied the
court’s order, as well as United States immigration laws, by promptly re-entering the
country. (Id. at 9.) The court noted that the federal district court in California had
sentenced Juan-Juarez to thirty months’ imprisonment, but determined that “the
violation here deserves a distinct penalty and is not subsumed by the penalty that was
assessed in California.” (Id. at 9-10.)
The court adjudicated Juan-Juarez guilty of the supervised release violations
and sentenced him to eighteen months’ imprisonment to run consecutively to the
thirty-month sentence imposed by the district court in California. (R.2-62 at 11.) It
noted that it had considered the policies and guidelines of the United States
Sentencing Commission, as well as the advisory guideline range and the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. (Id. at 11-12.) It explained that Juan-Juarez
“demonstrated an unaccountable resilience to an 11-month sentence given earlier and
an admonition not to enter the United States without [permission]” by promptly re-
3
entering the country. (Id. at 12.) The court noted that Juan-Juarez’s prior offense was
not “mere presence,” but rather involved the “large-scale transportation of aliens
under grim circumstances.” (Id.) The court found that Juan-Juarez had gained no
respect for the law as a result of his prior sentence, appeared undeterred by that
sentence, and was willing to commit further crimes. (Id.) The court determined that
the sentence was “comfortably within the range of [a] reasonable sentence for
someone who offends so quickly and so defiantly and . . . without remorse.” (Id. at
13.) It noted that the sentence was above the high end of the applicable guideline
range, but stated that it chose to make an impression on Juan-Juarez at this stage in his
life. Juan-Juarez objected “as to [the] reasonableness” of the sentence. (Id. at 14.)
Juan-Juarez first argues that the district court’s imposition of the eighteen-
month sentence was procedurally unreasonable. We disagree. Juan-Juarez’s sentence
was procedurally reasonable, because the district court accurately calculated the
advisory guideline range and treated the range as advisory, considered the § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, and explained its reasons for imposing the sentence. See United
States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329-30 (11th Cir. 2005). The court also adequately
explained its reasons for imposing an upward variance, noting that the variance was
warranted by Juan-Juarez’s prompt re-entry into the country in violation of
immigration laws and the court’s order, the failure of Juan-Juarez’s previous
4
eleven-month sentence to deter him from committing further crimes, and the court’s
desire to make an impression on Juan-Juarez at this stage in his life. Accordingly, the
district court did not abuse its discretion and imposed a procedurally reasonable
sentence.
Juan-Juarez next argues that his eighteen-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable. We disagree. The fact that Juan-Juarez violated the immigration laws
and the terms of his supervised release by re-entering the United States less than one
year after being deported indicates that his previous eleven-month sentence was an
insufficient deterrent and that a lengthier sentence was necessary to promote respect
for the law. Moreover, the court noted during the revocation proceeding that Juan-
Juarez’s previous conviction for aiding and abetting the transportation of illegal aliens
was a serious offense. Thus, although Juan-Juarez’s criminal history may not have
been lengthy, his prior offense was a serious one. Finally, the eighteen-month
sentence was well below the applicable statutory maximum three-year term of
imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In light of these facts, the eighteen-month
sentence the district court imposed was substantively reasonable. We affirm the
sentence.
AFFIRMED.
5
6