USA v. Noe Hernandez, No. 11-10263 (11th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-10263 AUGUST 16, 2011 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK D.C. Docket No. 4:10-cr-00041-RLV-WEJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NOE GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (August 16, 2011) Before PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Noe Gonzalez Hernandez appeals his sentence of 41 months of imprisonment for reentering the United States illegally. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Hernandez argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Hernandez at the low end of the guideline range. In 2003, Hernandez was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and deported from the United States, and in 2010, agents apprehended Hernandez in Georgia, where he had been residing for approximately four years ostensibly to escape death threats that he had received in Mexico. The district court [took] into account the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and reasonably determined that a sentence of 41 months of imprisonment, which is well below the statutory maximum of 20 years, [took] into account [Hernandez s personal] circumstances and offense and history and characteristics yet would provide[] adequate punishment and deter[] him from reentering the United States illegally yet again. Hernandez argues that the 16-level enhancement of his base offense level based on his conviction in 1998 for trafficking in cocaine base, United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), is inappropriate and unreasonable because there is no empirical or national evidence supporting such an enhancement, but the lack of such evidence does not require 2 that the district court disregard the advisory guideline. See United States v. Snipes, 611 F.3d 855, 870 (11th Cir. 2010). Hernandez s sentence is reasonable. We AFFIRM Hernandez s sentence. 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.
