US v. Simon Cruz-Venez, No. 10-4369 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4369 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SIMON CRUZ-VENEZ, a/k/a Simon Cruz-Yanez, a/k/a Simon YanezCruz, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00161-JBF-FBS-1) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Richard J. Colgan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Research and Writing Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Katherine Lee Martin, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Simon Cruz-Venez appeals the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry by an aggravated felon, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2) (2006). sentence imposed was unreasonable. The court reviews He contends that the We affirm. Cruz-Venez s sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In reviewing a sentence, this court must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as incorrectly United States v. Osborne, 514 calculating the guidelines range. F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008). When rendering a sentence, the district court must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented, applying the relevant [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2006)] factors to the specific circumstances of the case before it. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). The court must also state in open court the particular reasons supporting its satisfy this arguments and chosen Court has a sentence that it reasoned and has basis legal decisionmaking authority. omitted). 2 set forth considered for the enough exercising to parties [its] own Id. (internal quotation marks If the sentence is free from procedural error, we then review it for substantive reasonableness. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Substantive reasonableness review entails taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Even if this court would have imposed a different sentence, this fact alone is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court. Id. at 474 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). Cruz-Venez does not dispute that his guidelines range was properly calculated. substantively He argues instead that his sentence is unreasonable because his offense level was enhanced by sixteen levels and his criminal history points by five based on his prior convictions which were over ten years old. However, this court has held that use of a prior conviction to increase the offense level and criminal history is permissible for the offense of reentry by an alien after a United States v. Crawford, 18 F.3d 1173, felony conviction. 1174-76, 1179 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding it is not impermissible double counting characteristic to treat under USSG prior felony § 2L1.2(b) as and a specific to count offense it in calculating criminal history under USSG § 4A1.1, where prior offense accounted for six of twelve criminal history points and 3 sixteen-level enhancement); see United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (affirming sixteen-level enhancement where the prior felony offense was fourteen years prior to the unlawful reentry conviction). We imposed apply within reasonable. an the appellate properly presumption calculated that a guidelines sentence range is United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding appellate presumption of reasonableness for withinguidelines sentence). In rejecting Cruz-Venez s arguments for a lesser sentence, the district court thoroughly considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and determined that they were best served by the imposition of a within-guidelines sentence. Furthermore, the court acknowledged its authority to impose a downward variance sentence, but concluded that, in light of the seriousness of Cruz-Venez s prior felony offenses, his lack of respect for the law, the seriousness of his offense conduct of driving while under the influence and without a driver s license, and his unlawful reentry into the United States after having been deported, a variance was not warranted. Under district court these did not circumstances, abuse its Venez s sentence is reasonable. Venez s sentence. we conclude discretion and that that the Cruz- Accordingly, we affirm Cruz- We dispense with oral argument because the 4 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
