USA v. Milton Andarade-Valle


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-50751 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: RHB , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 06/27/2013 for Appellant Milton Joel Andarade-Valle [12-50751]

Download PDF
Case: 12-50751 Document: 00512264652 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-50751 Summary Calendar June 6, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. MILTON JOEL ANDARADE-VALLE, also known as Milton Joel Andrade-Valle, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:11-CR-1853-1 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Milton Joel Andarade-Valle challenges his 90-month, within-Guidelines sentence as substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He contends: the illegal reentry Guideline, § 2L1.2, is unreasonable because it lacks an empirical basis; under the Guideline, his prior drug-trafficking conviction was used to increase his offense level and criminal-history score, resulting in double counting; the advisory Guidelines sentencing range failed to account for his mitigating * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 12-50751 Document: 00512264652 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 No. 12-50751 personal history and characteristics; and a presumption of reasonableness should not apply to a within-Guidelines sentence imposed under § 2L1.2. He concedes this last issue is foreclosed, see United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530-31 (5th Cir. 2009), and raises it only to preserve it for possible further review. Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must still properly calculate the Guideline-sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 48-51 (2007). In that respect, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005). Because Andarade does not claim procedural error, we consider only the “substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard”. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Andarade’s claiming § 2L1.2 is unreasonable because it is not empirically based is foreclosed by our court’s precedent. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31. Also foreclosed is his contending a sentence imposed pursuant to § 2L1.2 is greater than necessary to meet § 3553(a)’s goals as a result of any double counting inherent in that Guideline. See id. at 529-31. Further, the record reflects the court balanced Andarade’s mitigation factors against other § 3553(a) factors, including the need for adequate deterrence and the need to protect the public from further crimes. The court stated a within-Guidelines sentence of 90 months was “not only appropriate but necessary to serve all the statutory purposes that [the court] outlined”. Andarade has failed to show his within-Guidelines sentence “does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, . . . gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or . . . represents a clear error of 2 Case: 12-50751 Document: 00512264652 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 No. 12-50751 judgment in balancing sentencing factors”. United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The presumption of reasonableness will not be disturbed. E.g., Cooks, 589 F.3d at 186; United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). AFFIRMED. 3

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?