U.S. v. Ruelas-Mendez

Decision Date09 February 2009
Docket NumberNo. 07-3686.,07-3686.
Citation556 F.3d 655
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ismael RUELAS-MENDEZ, also known as Luis Reyna-Gonzalez, also known as Jose Velazquez, also known as Ismael Ruelas, also known as Luis Gonzalez, Luis Reina Gonsales, agent of, also known as Jose Velasquez, also known as Luis Reyna-Gonzales, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Katherine Menendez, AFPD, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.

Frank J. Magill, Jr., AUSA, Minneapolis, MN, for appellee.

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, COLLOTON, Circuit Judge, and PIERSOL,1 District Judge.

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Ismael Ruelas-Mendez pled guilty to illegal re-entry to the United States after a previous deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court2 sentenced him to 46 months' imprisonment, at the bottom of the advisory guideline range. We affirm.

On May 14, 2007, Ruelas-Mendez was arrested for possession of cocaine. An investigation revealed that he was in the United States unlawfully, and that he had been deported from the country twice before. The first removal occurred in December 1992, following convictions in Oregon state court for cocaine trafficking offenses, and the second in August 2002, after a federal conviction in Texas for illegal re-entry.

In June 2007, a grand jury charged Ruelas-Mendez with unlawful re-entry into the United States after a previous deportation. He entered a plea of guilty. The probation office calculated Ruelas-Mendez's advisory guideline range to be 46 to 57 months' imprisonment, and the district court adopted the calculation. Ruelas-Mendez urged the court to impose a sentence below the advisory range, based on USSG § 4A1.3 and an alleged overstatement of his criminal history, and based on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court rejected these arguments and sentenced Ruelas-Mendez to 46 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, Ruelas-Mendez argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable, because the district court failed to give adequate weight to mitigating facts, and gave too much weight to the sentencing guidelines and the need for deterrence. We review the reasonableness of the district court's sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Because the court imposed a sentence within the advisory guideline range and consistent with the recommendation of the Sentencing Commission, we presume that it is substantively reasonable. United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir.2005); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-68, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Ruelas-Mendez contends that the district court gave "no apparent weight to the unique and devastating circumstances" arising from the fact that his children reside in the United States and need his financial and emotional support. He also asserts that the criminal history score under the advisory guidelines greatly overstated his criminal history and propensity for future crimes. The district court, however, considered these points and found them unpersuasive grounds to justify a more lenient sentence. The court expressed "empathy without doubt" to Ruelas-Mendez's spouse and family, and acknowledged that the circumstances were "incredibly difficult for them." But the court explained that Ruelas-Mendez's prior conviction for distributing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, although dating to 1992, was a serious offense about which the United States has "a very strong feeling," that Ruelas-Mendez then violated the prohibition on re-entry by returning to the United States, and that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 cases
  • United States v. Patrie
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 12 Junio 2014
    ...court "has substantial latitude to determine how much weight to give the various factors under § 3553(a)." United States v. Ruelas-Mendez, 556 F.3d 655, 657 (8th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) ("[It] will be the unusual case when ......
  • USA v. Rubashkin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 21 Junio 2010
    ......US Attorney's Office, Northern District of Iowaecf, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff. 718 F.Supp.2d 958         Daniel R. Fritz, Lynn, Jackson, ...Ruelas-Mendez, 556 F.3d 655, 657 (8th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (“ ‘[I]t will be the ......
  • U.S. v. Bastian
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 20 Agosto 2009
    ......Ruelas-Mendez, 556 F.3d 655, 657 (8th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) ("`[I]t will be the unusual case ......
  • U.S. v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 22 Septiembre 2011
    ......The court's explanation satisfies us that the presumptively reasonable sentence is indeed substantively reasonable.III.         Smith asserts that the court's criminal ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • LEGAL FICTION: READING LOLITA AS A SENTENCING MEMORANDUM.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 86 No. 1, March 2023
    • 22 Marzo 2023
    ...the advisory guideline range is substantively reasonable" (first citing Gall, 522 U.S. at 41; then citing United States v. Ruelas-Mendez, 556 F.3d 655, 657 (8th Cir. (111) See, e.g., United States v. Wright, No. CR 13-8-ART-CJS, 2015 WL 9305666, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 25, 2015), report and re......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT