USA v. Jose Aguilar-Arraiza, No. 10-13006 (11th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 10-13006 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FEBRUARY 22, 2011 JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cr-00073-SDM-TGW-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, llllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE LUIS AGUILAR-ARRAIZA, a.k.a. Jose Luis Alvarez-Arraiza, a.k.a. Jose Luis Aguilera-Arraiza, a.k.a. Jose Luis Alvarez, a.k.a. Fernando Garza, a.k.a. Jose Luis Alvarez-Gutierrez, a.k.a. Jesse Luis Alvarez, a.k.a. Jose Alvarez, llllllllllllllll ll Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (February 22, 2011) Before MARCUS, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jose Luis Aguilar-Arraiza appeals the reasonableness of his sentence of imprisonment for 110 months following his plea of guilt to illegal re-entry into the United States after deportation for an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Aguilar-Arraiza s latest conviction followed four deportations in 1974, 1977, 1996, and 2007 and several earlier convictions. We affirm. Our review of a sentence for reasonableness is a deferential standard of review for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Aguilar-Arraiza s sentence is reasonable. The district court correctly calculated the guideline range of 70 to 87 months and considered the statutory sentencing factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court reasonably concluded that an upward variance was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and afford adequate deterrence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing AguilarArraiza to 110 months of imprisonment. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
