23-8123-cr United States v. Martinez Castillo
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER“). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25th day of November, two thousand twenty-four.
PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, REENA RAGGI, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v. No. 23-8123-cr
DARWIN ALEXANDER MARTINEZ- CASTILLO, AKA, SEALED DEFENDANT 1,
Defendant-Appellant.*
------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR APPELLEE: JAMES LIGTENBERG, Assistant United States Attorney (Lisa
* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. Daniels, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: ALLEGRA GLASHAUSSER, Federal Defenders of New York, New York, NY
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Lewis A. Kaplan, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Defendant-Appellant Darwin Alexander Martinez-Castillo appeals from a
December 20, 2023 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Kaplan, J.) convicting him, following a guilty plea, of one
count of illegally reentering the United States following removal subsequent to a
felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). The District
Court sentenced Martinez-Castillo principally to 48 months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, Martinez-Castillo challenges his sentence as both procedurally and
substantively unreasonable. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as
2 necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
I. Background
Martinez-Castillo illegally entered the United States at least seven times.
While in this country in 2018, Martinez-Castillo forced himself into a victim’s car,
threatened the victim with a gun and knife, and stole cash and other valuable
items. After his conviction in state court for criminal possession of stolen
property for which he was sentenced to a one-year term of imprisonment,
Martinez-Castillo pleaded guilty in federal court to illegally reentering the
United States (his sixth time). He was sentenced to 65 days’ imprisonment and
was removed from the United States in April 2019.
In 2023 Martinez-Castillo was again charged with and ultimately pleaded
guilty to illegally reentering the United States. At sentencing, Martinez-Castillo
argued that he should receive a sentence of time-served, amounting to about
eight months. The Government sought a sentence within the Guidelines range
of 30 to 37 months’ imprisonment set forth in the Presentencing Report (“PSR”).
This appeal followed the District Court’s imposition of an above-Guidelines
sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment.
II. Procedural Unreasonableness Challenge
3 We begin with Martinez-Castillo’s challenge to the procedural
reasonableness of his sentence. Because Martinez-Castillo did not challenge the
District Court’s explanation of his sentence during that proceeding, “plain error
analysis in full rigor applies to unpreserved claims that a district court failed to”
adequately explain its sentence. United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204, 211 (2d
Cir. 2007). “[R]eversal for plain error should be used sparingly, solely in those
circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” Id. at
209 (quotation marks omitted).
The District Court justified Martinez-Castillo’s above-Guidelines sentence
by emphasizing that he had illegally reentered the United States several times,
broken his specific promise not to do so, and committed multiple non-
immigration offenses, including a violent felony, while in the United States. On
appeal, Martinez-Castillo argues that none of these reasons adequately justified
his above-Guidelines sentence, “particularly given that [his] prior criminal
history, both his illegal reentries and his other criminal history, were accounted
for in that guideline range and the statute of conviction also took into account
that he had a prior felony conviction.” Appellant’s Br. 20. He also claims that
4 the District Court’s explanation misconstrued his criminal and personal history.
We disagree.
First, we reject as meritless Martinez-Castillo’s argument that the District
Court improperly considered his previous convictions for illegal reentry and his
prior state conviction to impose an above-Guidelines sentence because they were
already included in the PSR’s Guidelines calculation. We have specifically
explained that “it may well [be] reasonable for the district court to have imposed
a non-Guidelines sentence based upon section 3553(a) factors already accounted
for in the Guidelines range.” United States v. Sindima, 488 F.3d 81, 87 (2d Cir.
2007).
Second, we find unpersuasive Martinez-Castillo’s argument that the
District Court failed adequately to consider that his multiple reentries were
motivated by his fear of violence in Honduras. Before imposing sentence, the
District Court explicitly considered Martinez-Castillo’s impoverished and
abusive upbringing and his fear of violence in Honduras based on his ethnic and
political affiliations.
Third, Martinez-Castillo also argues that the District Court inaccurately
called him a “violent man” and “a thief” and that the PSR’s recounting of the
5 arrest report regarding his prior felony conviction mischaracterized the events
precipitating the arrest. Appellant’s Br. 22–23; App’x 44. At sentencing,
however, Martinez-Castillo did not object to the PSR, and we conclude that the
District Court did not plainly err in adopting its factual findings. See United
States v. Highsmith, 688 F.3d 74, 77–78 (2d Cir. 2012).
Finally, Martinez-Castillo argues that the District Court never explained
why a within-Guidelines sentence was not adequate to achieve the goals of
deterrence and public safety. The District Court was under no obligation to do
so. We have “never required a district court to explain in open court why any
particular unselected sentence would be inappropriate.” United States v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
23-8123-cr United States v. Martinez Castillo
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER“). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25th day of November, two thousand twenty-four.
PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, REENA RAGGI, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v. No. 23-8123-cr
DARWIN ALEXANDER MARTINEZ- CASTILLO, AKA, SEALED DEFENDANT 1,
Defendant-Appellant.*
------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR APPELLEE: JAMES LIGTENBERG, Assistant United States Attorney (Lisa
* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. Daniels, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: ALLEGRA GLASHAUSSER, Federal Defenders of New York, New York, NY
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Lewis A. Kaplan, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Defendant-Appellant Darwin Alexander Martinez-Castillo appeals from a
December 20, 2023 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Kaplan, J.) convicting him, following a guilty plea, of one
count of illegally reentering the United States following removal subsequent to a
felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). The District
Court sentenced Martinez-Castillo principally to 48 months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, Martinez-Castillo challenges his sentence as both procedurally and
substantively unreasonable. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as
2 necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
I. Background
Martinez-Castillo illegally entered the United States at least seven times.
While in this country in 2018, Martinez-Castillo forced himself into a victim’s car,
threatened the victim with a gun and knife, and stole cash and other valuable
items. After his conviction in state court for criminal possession of stolen
property for which he was sentenced to a one-year term of imprisonment,
Martinez-Castillo pleaded guilty in federal court to illegally reentering the
United States (his sixth time). He was sentenced to 65 days’ imprisonment and
was removed from the United States in April 2019.
In 2023 Martinez-Castillo was again charged with and ultimately pleaded
guilty to illegally reentering the United States. At sentencing, Martinez-Castillo
argued that he should receive a sentence of time-served, amounting to about
eight months. The Government sought a sentence within the Guidelines range
of 30 to 37 months’ imprisonment set forth in the Presentencing Report (“PSR”).
This appeal followed the District Court’s imposition of an above-Guidelines
sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment.
II. Procedural Unreasonableness Challenge
3 We begin with Martinez-Castillo’s challenge to the procedural
reasonableness of his sentence. Because Martinez-Castillo did not challenge the
District Court’s explanation of his sentence during that proceeding, “plain error
analysis in full rigor applies to unpreserved claims that a district court failed to”
adequately explain its sentence. United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204, 211 (2d
Cir. 2007). “[R]eversal for plain error should be used sparingly, solely in those
circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” Id. at
209 (quotation marks omitted).
The District Court justified Martinez-Castillo’s above-Guidelines sentence
by emphasizing that he had illegally reentered the United States several times,
broken his specific promise not to do so, and committed multiple non-
immigration offenses, including a violent felony, while in the United States. On
appeal, Martinez-Castillo argues that none of these reasons adequately justified
his above-Guidelines sentence, “particularly given that [his] prior criminal
history, both his illegal reentries and his other criminal history, were accounted
for in that guideline range and the statute of conviction also took into account
that he had a prior felony conviction.” Appellant’s Br. 20. He also claims that
4 the District Court’s explanation misconstrued his criminal and personal history.
We disagree.
First, we reject as meritless Martinez-Castillo’s argument that the District
Court improperly considered his previous convictions for illegal reentry and his
prior state conviction to impose an above-Guidelines sentence because they were
already included in the PSR’s Guidelines calculation. We have specifically
explained that “it may well [be] reasonable for the district court to have imposed
a non-Guidelines sentence based upon section 3553(a) factors already accounted
for in the Guidelines range.” United States v. Sindima, 488 F.3d 81, 87 (2d Cir.
2007).
Second, we find unpersuasive Martinez-Castillo’s argument that the
District Court failed adequately to consider that his multiple reentries were
motivated by his fear of violence in Honduras. Before imposing sentence, the
District Court explicitly considered Martinez-Castillo’s impoverished and
abusive upbringing and his fear of violence in Honduras based on his ethnic and
political affiliations.
Third, Martinez-Castillo also argues that the District Court inaccurately
called him a “violent man” and “a thief” and that the PSR’s recounting of the
5 arrest report regarding his prior felony conviction mischaracterized the events
precipitating the arrest. Appellant’s Br. 22–23; App’x 44. At sentencing,
however, Martinez-Castillo did not object to the PSR, and we conclude that the
District Court did not plainly err in adopting its factual findings. See United
States v. Highsmith, 688 F.3d 74, 77–78 (2d Cir. 2012).
Finally, Martinez-Castillo argues that the District Court never explained
why a within-Guidelines sentence was not adequate to achieve the goals of
deterrence and public safety. The District Court was under no obligation to do
so. We have “never required a district court to explain in open court why any
particular unselected sentence would be inappropriate.” United States v. Rosa,
957 F.3d 113, 118 (2d Cir. 2020). In any event, the District Court’s explanations
for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence here certainly satisfied Section
3553(c)’s “low threshold.” Id. at 119.
For these reasons, we reject Martinez-Castillo’s challenge to the procedural
reasonableness of his sentence.
6 III. Substantive Unreasonableness Challenge
We turn next to Martinez-Castillo’s challenge to his sentence as
substantively unreasonable, which we review for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 121–22 (2d Cir. 2009).
Martinez-Castillo argues that in light of his “harsh life” and “hardships as
a child,” he is “truly someone who needed treatment, education, and training,
rather than a lengthy incarceration.” Appellant’s Br. 26. He also points to the
deplorable conditions he faced during his detention at the Metropolitan
Detention Center (the “MDC”) as another reason his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. We are not persuaded. “The particular weight to be afforded
aggravating and mitigating factors is a matter firmly committed to the discretion
of the sentencing judge.” United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265, 289 (2d Cir.
2012) (quotation marks omitted). In determining the appropriate sentence, the
District Court considered Martinez-Castillo’s difficult upbringing and the
conditions of his confinement at the MDC. In any event, this record does not
remotely suggest that the District Court’s decision to impose an above-
Guidelines sentence after considering these factors falls outside the “range of
permissible decisions.” Rigas, 583 F.3d at 122.
7 For these reasons, we reject Martinez-Castillo’s challenge to his sentence
on substantive reasonableness grounds.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Martinez-Castillo’s remaining arguments and
conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment
of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court