USA v. Dominto Miguel Morales-Sebastian, No. 13-12606 (11th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-12606 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-12606 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cr-00240-MHT-WC-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DOMINGO MIGUEL MORALES-SEBASTIAN, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ________________________ (October 21, 2013) Before DUBINA, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 13-12606 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 2 of 4 Domingo Morales-Sebastian appeals his 20-month sentence, which the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of illegal re-entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). After careful review, we affirm. After Morales-Sebastian pleaded guilty, the probation officer prepared a presentence investigation report (PSI) calculating his base-offense level of 8, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a). Because Morales-Sebastian previously had been deported after a prior conviction for a crime of violence, the PSI applied a 12-level enhancement. Id. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). With a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, his total offense level was 17. Because Morales-Sebastian s criminal-history category was I, his ultimate guidelines range was 24-30 months imprisonment. The district court adopted the PSI s calculations but ultimately sentenced Morales-Sebastian to a below-guidelines sentence of 20 months. This is Morales-Sebastian s appeal. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The district court must impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), including the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from the defendant s potential future criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). And the court must consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the 2 Case: 13-12606 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 3 of 4 history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the applicable guidelines range, the relevant policy statements of the sentencing commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7). Morales-Sebastian contends his sentence is unreasonable because the 12level enhancement for his prior burglary conviction and subsequent deportation is unduly harsh because that conviction occurred over a decade ago. He asserts that § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) s enhancement is not supported by empirical evidence that double-digit enhancements are warranted and, as a result, defendants sentenced under that provision are essentially punished again for a previous offense. Based on this injustice and on his history and characteristics, Morales-Sebastian argues, the district court abused its discretion in varying downwards by only four months. We cannot agree that, in light of the district court s thorough reasoning at sentencing, its ultimate sentence amounted to an abuse of discretion. The district court detailed Morales-Sebastian s mitigating personal circumstances he came into the country as a child, not by his own choice and weighed those factors against the severity of his criminal history. The court agreed with MoralesSebastian that the enhancement was harsh in light of the age of the underlying offense and, resultantly, sentenced him below his guidelines range, finding the sentence imposed is sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the 3 Case: 13-12606 Date Filed: 10/21/2013 Page: 4 of 4 factors in § 3553(a). Based on the totality of the circumstances, which the district court carefully considered, we cannot say the court imposed a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences. AFFIRMED. 4
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.
