USA v. Gilberto Maldonado-Avila

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Gilberto Maldonado-Avila. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 13-10276

Date Filed: 08/29/2013

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10276
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-00277-WSD-JFK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GILBERTO MALDONADO-AVILA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(August 29, 2013)
Before BARKETT, HULL and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-10276

Date Filed: 08/29/2013

Page: 2 of 3

Gilberto Maldonado-Avila appeals his 50-month sentence, imposed after
pleading guilty to one count of reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), (b)(2). On appeal, Maldonado-Avila argues that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable.
However, Maldonado-Avila has not met his burden of showing that his 50month sentence is substantively unreasonable. First, his sentence is in the middle
of the advisory guidelines range of 46 to 57 months and well below the 20-year
statutory maximum penalty. The sentence, moreover, met the goals encompassed
within 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In particular, the district court focused on MaldonadoAvila’s criminal history and background, which included prior convictions for DUI
(on three separate occasions), giving a false name to a police officer, possession
with the intent to distribute cocaine, possession with the intent to distribute
methamphetamine, and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.
The district court also relied on the need to deter Maldonado-Avila and other
convicted felons from illegally reentering the United States, which is an
appropriate consideration under § 3553(a). The district court acknowledged
Maldonado-Avila’s testimony that he had faced harassment, threats, and assaults
from the Federal Police in Mexico, who mistakenly believed he was a member of a
drug cartel. The district court concluded, nevertheless, that Maldonado-Avila
returned to the United States with full knowledge that he could be punished for
2

Case: 13-10276

Date Filed: 08/29/2013

Page: 3 of 3

reentering the country without permission and that Maldonado-Avila’s reentry
offense was serious in light of his criminal background, and accordingly, a
guidelines sentence was reasonable.
Maldonado-Avila’s arguments that the district court did not appropriately
consider his mitigating evidence, overrepresented his criminal history, and
inappropriately considered general deterrence all represent an overarching
contention that the district court inappropriately weighed the § 3553(a) factors.
The weight given to any one § 3553(a) factor, however, is within the discretion of
the trial court. United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007). Because
the sentence was supported by the §3553(a) factors, the district court did not
commit a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors, and did not abuse its
discretion.
AFFIRMED.

3