USA v. Raul Carlin, No. 14-14465 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-14465 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-14465 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cr-60113-BB-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAUL CARLIN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (July 9, 2015) Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-14465 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 2 of 4 Raul Carlin appeals his sentence of 46 months of imprisonment following his plea of guilty to reentering the United States illegally a third time. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Carlin challenges the denial of his motion for a downward departure and the reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm. We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Carlin’s motion for a downward departure. A decision to deny a downward departure is shielded from review when the record “suggests that the [district] court understood that it could depart, but chose not do so.” United States v. Dudley, 463 F.3d 1221, 1228 (11th Cir. 2006). Carlin argued that his offense level overstated the seriousness of his prior offense, United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3(b)(1) (Nov. 2013), and that former commentary to the guideline for illegal reentries recommended a departure if a defendant had one prior felony conviction that did not involve violence and for which he had received a sentence of one year or less, id. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.5 (Nov. 1999). The district court ruled that there was “no basis for [it] to depart . . . [based on the former commentary because Carlin’s] prior felony, the aggravated assault with a firearm, is, in fact, a prior crime of violence.” The district court also considered evidence that Carlin had committed the offense “when [he was] 17 years of age,” had “work[ed] as a barber . . . [and] received a monthly income of $1,600 yet . . . never filed an income tax return,” and had reentered the United States illegally where he amassed several convictions, and the court determined 2 Case: 14-14465 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 3 of 4 that it was “not inclined to depart from the guidelines.” These remarks do not reflect that the district court failed to understand its authority to depart. Carlin’s sentence is reasonable. The district court stated that it considered Carlin’s presentence investigation report, the statutory sentencing factors, and his arguments for a sentence of 30 months based on the overstatement of his criminal history, his desire to reunite with family in Florida, and his improvement in character, and determined that a sentence at the low end of Carlin’s advisory guideline range of 46 to 57 months was “appropriate.” See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Carlin was deported in December 2006 after completing a custodial sentence for aggravated assault with a firearm; in May 2009, he reentered this country illegally and was deported following his convictions for carrying a concealed weapon, resisting arrest without violence, driving without a license, and giving a false name to law enforcement; and in July 2012, he was deported a third time. Undeterred, Carlin again reentered the United States illegally and was apprehended by immigration officials in April 2014. Based on that record, the district court reasonably determined that a sentence of 46 months of imprisonment would best address the statutory sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Carlin’s sentence, which is well below his maximum statutory penalty of 20 years for his illegal reentry, is reasonable. See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008). 3 Case: 14-14465 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 We AFFIRM Carlin’s sentence. 4 Page: 4 of 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.
