UNITED STATES v. JUAREZ COLMENERO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-06-25No. No. 20-2717

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the 84-month sentence, finding no clear error in the district court's consideration and weighing of the relevant sentencing factors, and holding that a within-guidelines sentence receives a presumption of reasonableness.

Juan Juarez-Colmenero pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm after police found two guns and drugs in his car, including one gun with a defaced serial number and a high-capacity magazine. He received an 84-month prison sentence, which fell at the bottom of the advisory sentencing guideline range of 84 to 105 months. On appeal, Juarez-Colmenero contended the sentence was substantively unreasonable, arguing the district court should have imposed a lower sentence based on factors such as the nonviolent nature of his offense, his lack of prior prison time, and the narrow margin by which his magazine exceeded the enhancement threshold. He also suggested the guideline range was designed for offenders with violent criminal histories, which he did not have, and that public safety concerns were minimal given his promise not to illegally reenter the country. The appellate court found no procedural errors in sentencing and applied a deferential standard of review, focusing on whether the district court abused its discretion when weighing the statutory sentencing factors.

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

Key issues

Whether an 84-month sentence at the bottom of the guideline range is substantively unreasonable
Whether the district court properly weighed §3553(a) sentencing factors
Whether a nonviolent first-time offender warrants downward variance from guidelines

Procedural posture

Juarez-Colmenero appealed his 84-month sentence imposed by the district court, challenging its substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Juan Juarez-Colmenero pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5) and 924(a)(2), and was sentenced to 84 months in prison. He appeals, arguing the district court

imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We affirm.

Juarez-Colmenero was arrested after police discovered drugs, drug paraphernalia, and two guns in his car. One of those guns had a defaced serial number and a magazine that could hold 16 rounds. He pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, and the U.S. Probation Office assessed him a total offense level of 25, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of 84 to 105 months. The district court sentenced him to 84 months in prison.

Juarez-Colmenero argues that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and imposing a bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence. He says the district court should have varied downward because his offense was non-violent, he had not previously served time in prison, and his 16-round magazine put him just over the threshold for an enhancement under § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B)(I). He also argues the advisory Guidelines range is better suited to those with histories of violent felonies, which he does not have. Finally, he says there is no need to protect the public because he promised not to illegally reenter the United States.

We review sentences first for procedural error and, finding no error, for substantive unreasonableness under “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Juarez-Colmenero does not argue procedural error, so we will only address substantive unreasonableness. We presume Juarez-Colmeneros within-Guidelines sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Harris, 964 F.3d 718, 725 (8th Cir. 2020).

We find no clear error of judgment in the district courts weighing of the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The record reflects that the district court considered all of the factors and responded to each of Juarez-Colmeneros arguments, even acknowledging that he persuaded the court to impose a bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence. “The mere fact that the court could have weighed the sentencing factors differently does not amount to an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Hall, 825 F.3d 373, 375 (8th Cir. 2016). The district court did not abuse its discretion.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable Roseann Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

PER CURIAM.