USA v. Roberto J. Montelongo, No. 06-11452 (11th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 06-11452 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT November 16, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 01-00076-CR-4-SPM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROBERTO J. MONTELONGO, a.k.a. Roberto Juarez, a.k.a. Roberto Montelongo Juarez, a.k.a. Juan Ismael Juares, a.k.a. Betto Juarez, a.k.a. Juan Ismael Juarez, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _________________________ (November 16, 2006) Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Roberto J. Montelongo appeals his sentence of 50 months for illegal reentry into the United States. Montelongo argues that the district court violated section 3553(a) because it failed both to state and find that Montelongo s sentence was not greater than necessary. 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553(a). The advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 46 to 57 months of imprisonment, and Montelongo did not object at sentencing. We affirm. When a defendant fails to object to an error before the district court, we review the argument for plain error. United States v. Raad, 406 F.3d 1322, 1323 (11th Cir.), cert. denied __ U.S. __, 126 S. Ct. 196 (2005). Plain error occurs where (1) there is an error; (2) that is plain or obvious; (3) affecting the defendant's substantial rights in that it was prejudicial and not harmless; and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id. (quoting United States v. Hall, 314 F.3d 565, 566 (11th Cir. 2002)). The district court did not err. [N]othing . . . requires [a] district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the [section] 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the [section] 3553(a) factors. United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2 2005). In addition, we review the sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness and ordinarily . . . expect a sentence within the Guidelines range to be reasonable. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). Because Montelongo s sentence achieve[s] the purposes of sentencing as stated in [section] 3553(a), it was reasonable. Id. 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.
