US v. Jesus Sanchez-Mendez, No. 12-4640 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4640 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JESUS SANCHEZ-MENDEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cr-00037-REP-1) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 18, 2013 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Valencia D. Roberts, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jesus Sanchez-Mendez pled guilty without a plea agreement to illegal re-entry by an aggravated felon, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). He was sentenced to thirty-six months in prison, to be followed by a thirty-six-month term of supervised release. Sanchez-Mendez now appeals, contending that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm. I We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. King, 673 F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 216 (2012). We first examine the sentence for significant procedural error. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If we find the sentence to be procedurally reasonable, we then will consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). [I]f a party repeats on appeal a claim of procedural sentencing error . . . which it has made before the district court, we review for abuse of discretion. abuse, we harmless. reverse unless we conclude that If we find such the error was United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2 2010). However, unpreserved are reviewed for plain error. non-structural sentencing errors Id. at 576-77. II Sanchez-Mendez s total offense level was 13, and his criminal 24-30 history category months. was The IV, for district a Guidelines court range determined of that Sanchez-Mendez s criminal history was sufficiently serious and the likelihood of recidivism sufficiently great to justify an upward departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3(a)(1) (2011). category IV The court concluded that criminal history substantially under-represented criminal past for several reasons: not assigned criminal history Sanchez-Mendez s five prior convictions were points; Sanchez-Mendez had consistently engaged in a variety of petty offenses since 2003; he had continued to commit crimes despite having received lenient treatment for his offenses; and he was not prosecuted and not assigned a criminal history point for his initial illegal entry into this country. The court accordingly granted the Government s motion for upward departure and departed to criminal history category VI, resulting in an offense level of 33-41 months. In thirty-six sentencing months in Sanchez-Mendez prison, the 3 within court this considered range to the 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) other things, (West the 2000 Supp. stated court & 2012) that the factors. selected Among sentence reflected the defendant s lack of respect for the law, the need to deter similar conduct by others, the need to protect the public from his criminal behavior, and the need to prevent his again entering this country illegally. Because Sanchez-Mendez requested a sentence below the original Guidelines range, he adequately preserved his claim that the term of imprisonment was unreasonable, and our review is for abuse of discretion. See Lynn, 592 F.3d at 578. When, as here, the district court imposes a departure sentence, this review requires us to consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to the extent of the divergence from the sentencing range. United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118, 123 (4th Cir. 2007). The district court has flexibility in fashioning a sentence outside of the Guidelines range, and need only set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that it has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for its decision. States v. (quoting Diosdado-Star, Rita v. United 630 F.3d States, (brackets omitted). 4 359, 551 364 U.S. (4th 338, United Cir. 356 2011) (2007)) Our district review court Sanchez-Mendez did explained the record abuse thirty-six Sanchez-Mendez s criminal the not to by of its history discretion months district prior convinces in court, offenses category that in the sentencing prison. was as five of counted not First, least at were us when his determined, and under-representation of criminal history is an encouraged basis for departure. (4th Cir United States v. Dixon, 318 F.3d 585, 588-89 2003). recidivism. Additionally, Therefore, the there decision was to a likelihood depart was of proper. Further, the district court appropriately applied several of the § 3553(a) factors when selecting a sentence only twenty percent above the highest end of the original Guidelines range. King, 673 reasonable F.3d § 3553(a) as at it factors 284 was (concluding adequately that the upward supported court variant by determined See sentence reference to required the sentence ultimately imposed ); Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d at 366-67 (holding upward variant sentence six years longer than Guidelines range reasonable because the court expressly relied on several § 3553(a) factors to support the variance). III Sanchez-Mendez contends that the three-year supervised release was unreasonable for two reasons. 5 term of First, he maintains that the district court contravened the Guidelines, which state that a district court ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release is not deportable that required alien imprisonment. the who by in a likely court s supervised Sanchez-Mendez did in and the will which supervised defendant deported be is a after Second, Sanchez-Mendez claims explanation release not case statute USSG § 5D1.1(c). district imposing release was object of its reasons inadequate. to imposition for Because of a term of supervised release or argue in favor of a term different than the one imposed, our review is for plain error. See Lynn, 592 F.3d at 576-77. We identify no such error in this case. Guideline does not prohibit the imposition Notably, the of a term of supervised release on deportable aliens, and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its supervised release on Sanchez-Mendez. discretion in imposing While the district court did not specifically tie the § 3553(a) factors to the term of supervised release, it is arguable that the court was not obligated to do so because Sanchez-Mendez did not challenge the imposition of a term of release at sentencing. many of the § 3553(a) factors that the court In any event, mentioned in imposing the term of imprisonment apply with equal force to the imposition of the supervised release 6 term. As previously discussed, the court considered the particular facts of SanchezMendez s case and found that an added measure of deterrence was needed to keep him from again illegally entering this country and to protect the public from his propensity to break the law. Because the court expressly considered the circumstances of the case in determining the supervised release term, we hold that the court s explanation was adequate, especially on plain error review. IV We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 7

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.