USA v. William Gonzalez-Valencia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-30303 Affirmed] Judge: CDK , Judge: FPB , Judge: JWE. Mandate pull date is 12/03/2010 for Appellant William Gonzalez-Valencia [10-30303]

Download PDF
USA v. William Gonzalez-Valencia Case: 10-30303 Document: 00511291625 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2010 Doc. 0 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED N o . 10-30303 S u m m a r y Calendar November 12, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. W I L L I A M GONZALEZ-VALENCIA, also known as William Gonzalez, also k n o w n as William Gonzales, also known as Julio Gonzalez, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Louisiana U S D C No. 2:09-CR-318-1 B e fo r e KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* W illia m Gonzalez-Valencia (Gonzalez) appeals from his conviction of ille g a l reentry. He contends that his sentence of 37 months of imprisonment, w h ic h was inside the applicable guideline sentencing range, was substantively u n r e a s o n a b le . He contends that the sentence was unreasonable because of the s t a le n e s s of the 1988 Florida drug conspiracy conviction responsible for a 16le v e l adjustment to his base offense level and his law-abiding lifestyle in the Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-30303 Document: 00511291625 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2010 No. 10-30303 U n ite d States since he illegally reentered this country in 2001. He asserts that w e should adopt the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in United States v. AmezcuaV a s q u e z , 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2009), which he argues would result in a d e t e r m in a t io n that his sentence was unreasonable. F o llo w in g United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-63 (2005), sentences a r e reviewed for "reasonableness." United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5 t h Cir. 2005). Under the now-discretionary guidelines scheme, the sentencing c o u r t has a duty to consider the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and to correctly d e t e r m in e the applicable guidelines range. Id. at 518-19. Pursuant to Gall v. U n ite d States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007), this court must determine whether the s e n te n c e imposed is procedurally sound, including whether the calculation of the a d v is o r y guidelines range is correct, and whether the sentence imposed is s u b s t a n t iv e ly reasonable. Review is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 51. "[A] s e n te n c e within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively r e a s o n a b le ." United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). G o n z a le z was born in Colombia, where he lived until he moved to Florida in 1988. He was convicted in 1988 and deported in 1989. He remained abroad u n t il 2001. He lived illegally in the United States from 2001 until 2009. Gonzalez had only a very brief history in this country before his Florida c o n v ic t io n s and subsequent deportation. Moreover, Gonzalez was deported in t h e year following his Florida convictions. Additionally, Gonzalez lived abroad fo r 12 years, and then lived illegally and unsupervised by the authorities in the U n ite d States for ten more years. Gonzalez has not rebutted the presumption o f reasonableness given to a within-range sentence with his arguments based on t h e age of his pre-deportation conviction and his allegedly law-abiding life in the U n ite d States. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338-39 (5 t h Cir. 2008); cf. United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9 t h Cir. 2010), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 20, 2010) (No. 10-6656). A F F IR M E D . 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?