UNITED STATES v. PALERMO HERNANDEZ (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-27No. Nos. 20-10035, 20-10036

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the 41-month sentence for illegal reentry and the 21-month revocation sentence.

Raymundo Palermo-Hernandez appealed his 41-month sentence for illegal reentry as a removed alien and an additional 21-month sentence imposed when his supervised release was revoked. He argued that the district court failed to consider his arguments and the relevant sentencing factors, and that it did not adequately explain its reasoning. The appellate court found no procedural error, noting that the record showed the district court had considered his requests for a shorter and fully concurrent sentence, evaluated the applicable sentencing factors, and provided sufficient justification for imposing a partially consecutive sentence structure.

Palermo-Hernandez also challenged the revocation sentence as substantively unreasonable because it did not run fully concurrent with his new conviction. The court rejected this argument, finding that the combined sentence was reasonable given the statutory factors governing revocation sentences and the specific circumstances, particularly Palermo-Hernandez's extensive history of immigration violations and prior criminal conduct.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider sentencing arguments and statutory factors
Whether the district court adequately explained its sentencing decision
Whether the revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable when imposed partially consecutive to the reentry conviction

Procedural posture

Palermo-Hernandez appealed his sentences for illegal reentry of a removed alien and revocation of supervised release in consolidated appeals.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Raymundo Palermo-Hernandez appeals from the 41-month sentence imposed for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Palermo-Hernandez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and by failing to explain adequately the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Palermo-Hernandezs arguments for a shorter and fully concurrent sentence, considered the relevant § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and adequately explained its determination that the aggregate, partially consecutive sentence was warranted. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008) (a sentencing judge need not expressly address every sentencing argument).

Palermo-Hernandez next contends that the revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable because it does not run fully concurrent to the sentence for his new criminal conviction. The aggregate sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including, as the district court noted, Palermo-Hernandezs significant immigration and criminal history. See United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).

AFFIRMED.