Case: 19-10824 Date Filed: 10/25/2019 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-10824
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-00322-ELR-CMS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ADOLFO LOZANO-BASURTO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 25, 2019)
Before TJOFLAT and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and HULL, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-10824 Date Filed: 10/25/2019 Page: 2 of 5
I.
Adolfo Lozano-Basurto, a Mexican national, is a convicted felon and has
illegally re-entered the United States multiple times. Sometime between 2015 and
2018, he again returned to this country illegally to escape alleged organized crime
violence. Authorities apprehended him and, as a result, a federal grand jury
indicted him for illegal re-entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and §
1326(b)(1). The District Court sentenced him within his Guidelines range to 50
months’ imprisonment.
Lozano-Basurto appeals, arguing that his sentence was substantively
unreasonable because the District Court (1) did not grant a downward variance
from his Guidelines range, (2) placed too much emphasis on his criminal history,
(3) failed to consider his acceptance of responsibility and reasons for fleeing
Mexico, and (4) failed to give adequate weight to the substantial time which has
elapsed since his prior drug trafficking conviction. Lozano-Basurto’s appeal lacks
merit. We therefore affirm.
II.
The party challenging the substantive reasonableness of a sentence bears the
burden to show that the sentence is unreasonable considering the record and the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir.
2010). We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse-of-
2
Case: 19-10824 Date Filed: 10/25/2019 Page: 3 of 5
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591
(2007).1
Under § 3553(a)(2), the district court must impose a sentence that is
sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to: (1) reflect the seriousness of the
offense, (2) promote respect for the law, (3) provide just punishment for the
offense, (4) deter criminal conduct, and (5) protect the public from the defendant’s
future criminal conduct. The court must also consider the criminal history and
characteristics of the defendant. Id. § 3553(a)(1). However, the district court need
not specifically address every mitigating factor raised by the defendant for the
sentence to be substantively reasonable, see United States v. Snipes, 611 F.3d 855,
873 (11th Cir. 2010), and a court’s refusal to grant a downward variance alone
does not demonstrate that the district court failed to afford consideration to
mitigating factors. United States v. Lebowitz, 676 F.3d 1000, 1016 (11th Cir.
2012).
1
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to determine if a formal objection after a
sentence is pronounced is necessary to preserve a claim of substantive unreasonableness for
appeal. United States v. Holguin-Hernandez, 746 F. App’x 403 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. granted,
139 S. Ct. 2666 (June 3, 2019) (No. 18-7739). Although Lozano-Basurto did not formally object
to his sentence after it was pronounced, we apply our ordinary abuse of discretion standard here
while Holguin-Hernandez remains pending. Any subsequent decision in that case will not affect
the outcome of this appeal because Lozano-Basurto’s claim fails under the less deferential abuse
of discretion standard, and therefore his claim would also fail under the more deferential plain
error standard.
3
Case: 19-10824 Date Filed: 10/25/2019 Page: 4 of 5
After considering the relevant § 3553(a) factors, the weight given to any
specific factor is committed to the sound discretion of the district court, United
States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007), unless the sentence was
unreasonable because the district court unjustifiably relied on a single factor.
United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir. 2006). In other words, we
will not second guess the weight the district court placed on a particular factor or
factors when the ultimate sentence is reasonable considering all the circumstances.
Snipes, 611 F.3d at 872. We ordinarily expect a sentence falling within the
defendant’s Guidelines range to be reasonable, and a sentence that is well below
the statutory maximum penalty also indicates that the district court imposed a
reasonable sentence. United States v. Stanley, 739 F.3d 633, 656 (11th Cir. 2014).
Here, the Court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors in reaching
Lozano-Basurto’s sentence. The Court: (1) considered Lozano-Basurto’s
mitigating personal circumstances, but declined to give them much weight because
he knew that his actions were illegal; (2) considered the time which had elapsed
since his prior drug trafficking conviction; (3) gave significant weight to the need
for deterrence because Lozano-Basurto has repeatedly illegally entered this
country; and (4) noted that his sentence reflected his significant criminal history.2
2
To the extent that Lozano-Basurto argues that his sentence was unreasonable because
the Court did not consider his acceptance of responsibility for his crime, his argument lacks merit
4
Case: 19-10824 Date Filed: 10/25/2019 Page: 5 of 5
Having properly considered the § 3553(a) factors and having weighed them
as it saw fit, the Court sentenced Lozano-Basurto to 50 months’ imprisonment.
This sentence was substantively reasonable because Lozano-Basurto had already
received a 41-month sentence for illegal reentry and that sentence did not deter him
from returning to this country unlawfully. Given the need for deterrence and his
criminal history, the Court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting his request for a
downward variance and imposing a sentence within his Guidelines range, which
we ordinarily expect to be reasonable, and well below his statutory maximum of
120 months’ imprisonment, which also indicates reasonableness. See Stanley, 739
F.3d at 656.
Accordingly, the Court imposed a substantively reasonable Guidelines
sentence.
AFFIRMED.
because the Guidelines already credited him for his admission by reducing his total offense level
by three before his Guidelines range was calculated.
5