USA v. Cesar David Barahona-Castro, No. 06-13966 (11th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 06-13966 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FEBRUARY 28, 2007 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 06-00002-CR-01-TWT-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CESAR DAVID BARAHONA-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _________________________ (February 28, 2007) Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Cesar David Barahona-Castro appeals his sentence of 37 months of imprisonment imposed after he pleaded guilty to reentering the United States illegally after deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Castro argues that his sentence, which is at the low-end of the Guidelines range, is unreasonable. We affirm. We review sentences for reasonableness, which is deferential. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 785, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). [W]hen the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one. Id. at 786. Castro argues that his sentence is unreasonable because of the sentencing disparity caused by the fast-track program, which is available in other districts but not in the Northern District of Georgia. Castro also argues that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of his history, characteristics, and the nature of his offence. These arguments fail. The sentencing disparity created by the absence of a fast-track program is not an appropriate consideration at sentencing. United States v. Arevalo-Juarez, 464 F.3d 1246, 150-51 (11th Cir. 2006). The record reflects that the district court considered the sentencing factors under section 3553, including the nature of the offense and the history and characteristics of Castro, and reasonably concluded that a sentence at the low-end of the guideline range was sufficient. 2 Castro s sentence is AFFIRMED. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.