FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT MARCH 28, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 13186 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 4 4 2 - C R - T - 1 7 - MAP U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R I G O B E R T O G A M E Z - P E R E I R A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 28, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R ig o b e r to G a m e z - P e r e ir a a p p e a ls h is c o n c u r r e n t th ir ty - s e v e n - m o n thTh is s e ntenc efalls at th elow e r end of there le va

nt rang esug g e ste d b y

theU. S. 1 Se ntenc ingGuide lin e s. Altho ugh G ame z-Pere ira argue s th at th edis tric t c ourt faile d toa de qu ate ly

c on sid e r h is 2 supposed mitigatingrole, hedid not argue in the district cour t, and he doe s not argue now, that he is entitled to a mitigating- role re duction under se ction 3B1.2 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Instead, Ga

mez-Pereira

mere ly argues that his mitigatingrole should fa ctor into the court’s a nalysis under § 3553(a). Wen o teth at t

h edis tric t c o urt, b e f

o r er e a c h ingth e§ 3 5 5 3 ( a) f a c to r s , r e d

u c e d G ame z- 3 Pereira ’s baseoffense leve l by threepoints for his acc eptanc e of responsibility , as allowe d under se c tio n 3 E1 .1 (a) a

nd (b ). Ab ov eand

beyon d this re du c tio n, Ga me z-Pere ira

no w a rgue s th at hi s “exceptional” acceptanceof re sponsibili ty should also fac tor into the court’s § 3553( a) a nalysis. 2 s e nt e nc e s f

orc ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e 500 gr a m s orm or e of c o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 , a n d p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te 50 0 g ra m s or m ore of c ocai ne, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1), (b)( 1)(B ). 1 O n a ppe a l , G a m e z - P e r e i r a a r gue s tha t , unde r18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , he s houl d ha ve be e n gr a nt e d a dow nw a r d va r i a nc e be l ow the r e l e va ntS e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge b e c a u s e , a s a p e r m a n e n t r e s id e n t a lie n f a c in g d e p o r ta tio n f

o llo w in g h is i ncar ce ra t i on , hi s i m pri sonm entw ou l d b e m ore onerous than t hatof a U . S . ci t i ze n c o n v ic te d o f

th e s a m e c r im e s . G a m e z - P e r e ir a a ls o c o n te n d s th a t h is s e n te n c e is un re as on abl e bec ause the di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o con si der hi s “ l ow l evel i nvol ve m e nt ” i n the c r i m e , a s w e l l a s hi s “ e xc e pt i ona l ” a c c e pt a nc e of 2 resp o n si b i l i ty. 3 A lth o u g h G am ez -P er eira d id n o t fil e a n y o b jectio n s to th e d istrict co u rt’s c a l c ul a t i on of

hi s a dvi s or y G ui de l i ne s r a nge , he di d m ove the c our ta ts e nt e nc i ng,3

p u r s u a n t § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , to im p o s e a s e n te n c e b e lo w th e r a n g e . S p e c if ic a lly , in h is att em ptt o con vi nce the di stri ctcourtthata bel ow -G ui del i nes s ent ence w as a p p r o p r ia te , G a m e z - P e r e ir a h ig h lig h te d th e f o llo w in g f

a c ts : th e n u m b e ro f

p e o p le w i l l i ng t o vouc h f

orhi m ; hi s l a c k of

a c r i m i na l hi s t or y ; hi s c ha r a c t e r , i nc l udi ng the fa ctthathe w as supp ort i ng t en chi l dren, four of w ho m bel on ged t o h i s dec ea se d s i s t e r - i n- l a w ; the f

a c ttha the ha d no pos s e s s or y i nt e r e s ti n the c oc a i ne a nd no c onne c t i on t o the s our c e ; a nd hi s c om pl e t e c om pl i a nc e w i th the i nve s t i ga t i on a nd w i th pr e s e nt e nc e pr oc e dur e s . N ot a bl y , G a m e z - P e r e i r a f a i l e d t o a r gue be f

or e the di s tr i c tc our ttha thi s i m m i gr a t i on s t a tus s houl d f a c t ori nt o the c our t ’ s de c i s i on w h e th e rto im p o s e a lo w e rs e n te n c e . I n ge ne r a l , w e r e vi e w the f i na l s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc our tf or re as on abl enes s, U ni t ed S t at es v. W i ni ng ea r, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 44 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ), bu tw e r evi ew any a rgum ent s notra i se d atthe di stri ctcourton l y f or pl ai n err or, se e, e. g. , U ni t ed S t at es v. B ennet t , 47 2 F . 3d 82 5, 83 1 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ); U ni t ed S t a t e s v. U nde r w ood, 446 F . 3d 1340, 1343 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . O urr e vi e w f or r e a s ona bl e ne s s e nt a i l s both pr oc e dur a l a nd s ubs t a nt i ve a s pe c t s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H unt , 459 F . 3d 1180, 1182 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . P r oc e dur a l l y , a s e nt e nc e m a y be un re as on abl e i f the di stri ctcourti m prop er l y c al cul at es the G ui del i nes i m pr i s onm e ntr a nge , tr e a t s the G ui de l i ne s a s m a nda t or y , f a i l s t o c ons i de rtheSection 3553(a) includes the following fac tors, which the district cour t must consider 4 to determine whether

a g iven sentenc e is rea sonable: (1) the na ture a nd circumstances of the offense and the hi story and chara cteristics of th e d e f e n d ant ; ( 2 ) th e n e e d t o r e f l e c t th e s e ri o u s n e s s o f th e o f f e n s e , t o pr omo te respe ct for thelaw, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the ne ed for deter renc e; (4) theneed to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the de fenda nt with neede d edu cational or vocational trainingor medical care; (6) thekinds of sentenc es available; (7) the SentencingGuidelines ra ng e; (8) pertinent policy statements o f the Sentenc ing Commission; (9) the nee d to avoid unw[arr]anted sentenc ing dispa

rities; and (10) theneed to provide re stitut ion to victims . United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (citing18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). 4 a p p r o p r ia te s ta tu to r y f

a c to r s , b a s e s th e s e n te n c e o n c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s f a c ts , o rf a ils t o a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n i t s r e a s o n i n g . G a l l v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 5 5 2 U . S. __ , __ , 1 2 8 S. C t . 58 6, 59 7 (20 07 ). A l tho ug h t he di stri ctcourtm ustconsi der the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors a tse nt enci ng , i tneed no tdi sc uss e ac h o f them on the re cord; ra ther, an 4 “ack n o w led g m en t b y th e d istrict co u rt th at ith as co n sid er ed th e d ef en d an t’ s arg u m en t s an d th e fact o rs i n sect i o n 3 5 5 3 (a) i s su ffi ci en t . ” U n i t ed S t at es v . T al l ey, 431 F . 3d 784, 786 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . S ubs t a nt i ve l y , a s e nt e nc e m a y be unr e a s ona bl e i f

, i n l i ghtof

the f a c t s a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the de f e nda nt ’ s c a s e , the l e ngth of the s e nt e nc e i s gr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a r y t o a c hi e ve the purpos e s of s e nt e nc i ng a s s t a t e d i n § 3553( a ) . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d 1353, 1360, 1 3 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . W e r evi ew de no vo w hether ase nt ence i s proce du ra l l y unrea sonabl e, U ni t ed S t a t e s v. H unt , 459 F . 3d 1180, 1183 ( 11th C i r . 2006) , butourr e vi e w f or5

s ubs t a nt i ve r e a s ona bl e ne s s i s m or e de f e r e nt i a l , W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d a t1363. “ T he w e i ghtt o be a c c or de d a ny gi ve n § 3553( a ) f a c t ori s a m a tt e rc om m i t t e d t o the s ound di s c r e t i on of

the di s tr i c tc our t , ” a nd “ [ w ] e w i l l nots ubs t i tut e ourj udgm e nt i n w e i ghi ng the r e l e va ntf a c t or s be c a us e ‘ [ o] urr e vi e w i s notde novo. ’ ” I d. (quo t i ng T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d at78 8). “ [T ] here i s ara ng e of r ea sonabl e s ent ence s fr om w hi ch the di stri ctcourtm ay choo se , ” a nd “ [a ] di stri ctcourtm ay i m po se a s e n te n c e th a t is e ith e rm o r e s e v e r e o rle n ie n t th a n th e s e n te n c e [ th is C o u r t] w o u ld ha ve i m pos e d. ” T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t788. F ur the r m or e , “ [ t ] he pa r ty c ha l l e ngi ng the s e nt e nc e be a r s the bur de n of e s t a bl i s hi ng the s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s ona bl e i n l i ghtof th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s .” I d . a t 1 3 6 1 . A l though w e br oa dl y c ons true G a m e z - P e r e i r a ’ s va r i ous c ont e nt i ons on appeal as chal l engi ng hi s s ent ence bo th p roce du ra l l y a nd subst ant i vel y, w e di sc ern no re vers i bl e e rr or. P roce du ra l l y, G am ez -P er ei raconcedes thatthe di stri ctcourt c or r e c t l y c a l c ul a t e d the r e l e va nta dvi s or y G ui de l i ne s r a nge . F ur the r m or e , a l though G am ez -P er ei rano w cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o con si der hi s “ l ow l evel i nvol ve m e nt ” i n the c r i m e , a s w e l l a s hi s “ e xc e pt i ona l ” a c c e pt a nc e of re spon si bi l i ty, the di stri ctcourtexpres sl y s t at ed atse nt enci ng thati tconsi dere d G a m e z - P e r e ir a ’s a r g u m e n ts a n d th e s e n te n c in g f a c to r s s e t f

o r th in § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . W e r e i t e r a t e tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tne e d nota ddr e s s e ve r y f a c t ori tc ons i de r s on the6

re cord. F urtherm ore, the di stri ctcourtadequat el y e xp l ai ned i t s r ea soni ng at se nt enci ng ; i tspec i fi ca l l y a dd re ss ed the nature a nd ci rc um st ance s of the offens e, th e s e r io u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e , a n d th e n e e d f

o rju s t p u n is h m e n t in th is c a s e . A cc ordi ng l y, w e f

i nd no error i n t he di stri ctcourt ’ s s ent enci ng procedure. S im ila r ly , G a m e z - P e r e ir a ’s s e n te n c e is n o t s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n r e a s o n a b le . G am ez -P er ei raas se rt s f or the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l thathi s s ent ence i s l on ger than nece ss ary bec ause hi s i m m i grat i on st atus w i l l re sul ti n a di spar i ty i n t i m e s erved as c o m p a r e d to U .S . c itiz e n s c o n v ic te d o f th e s a m e c r im e s . I t d o e s n o t c o n s titu te p la in e r r o rf

o rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t to r e f u s e to im p o s e a b e lo w - g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e in lig h t o f th e a lle g e d f

a c t th a t th e B u r e a u o f

P r is o n s w ill tr e a t p r is o n e r s d if f e r e n tly w h e n th e y a r e f

a c in g d e p o r ta tio n . G a m e z - P e r e ir a h a s n o t m e t h is b u r d e n to e s ta b lis h th a t h is s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n a b le in lig h t o f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p o s e d a p r o c e d u r a lly a n d s u b s ta n tiv e ly r e a s o n a b le s e n te n c e , a n d w e a f f ir m . AF F I RME D.