FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 85 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-0 01 44 -WSD-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us PEDRO CAMACHO-R EYES, a.k .a. Yon at an Cam ach o- Ram ire z, a.k .a. Yon at ho n C am ach o- Ram ire z, Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 16 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, HULL andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ped ro Cam ach o- Reyes ap pe al s h is 33 -m on th sen te nc e fo r il le ga ll yreen te rin g t he Uni te d S ta te s af te r ha vi ng be en de po rte d, 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6( a) an d (b )(1 ). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af firm . The reco rdsh ows th atCam ach o- Reyes was de po rte d fo ur ti m es be fo re -- on ce i n 2 00 0, t wice in 20 06 , andon ce i n 2 00 7. He h as si x p rev io us co nv ic ti on s, in cl ud in g t wo fo r po ss es si on of m et ha m ph et am in e an d o ne for

po ss es si on of a fir earm wit ho uta li cen se . Bas edonhi s cr im in al hi st ory an d o ffen se lev el , hi s ad vi so ry sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s ra ng e was 15 to 21 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. On ap pe al , Cam ach o- Reyes arg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e p ro cedur al ly is u nr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d a n upwa rdde pa rtu re b as edon hi s cr im in al hi st ory , bu t fa il edto fol lo w th e p ro cedur es setforth in U.S.S.G. § 4 A1.3
. * W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a d is tri ctco urt’s s en te nc e u nd er a de fere nt ia l ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ardof r ev ie w. Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 1 28 S.Ct
. 58 6, 5 91 (20 07 ). The p art y ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n o f
es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le in th e li gh t o f bo th th e rec or d a nd th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Un it edSta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ). In d et erm in in g wh et he r an ab ov e-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e was th e res ul t o f Although Camacho- Reyes asse rts -- in his initial statement of the issues -- that his * sentenc e substantively

is unreasona

ble, he doe s not address this argument in the body of his brief. As a re sult, thi s issue is abandoned, a nd we will not addre ss it on appeal. See United States v. J ernig an, 341 F .3d 1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003) (c oncludingthat, to raise a n issue on appea l, a par ty must, “[a] t the very

least, . . . devote a discre te, substantial portion of his argumentation to that issue.”). 2an up wardde pa rtu re u nd er t he gu id el in es , or ava ria nc e u nd er t he sec ti on 35 53 (a)

fact or s, we co ns id er wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt ci te d t o asp eci fic gu id el in es de pa rtu re p ro vi si on or c on cl ud edth atth e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge was in ad equa te in th e li gh t o f th e se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Un it edSta te s v . Kapo rd el is , 56 9 F .3d12 91 , 13 16 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ), cert . den ie d, 1 30 S.Ct . 13 15 (20 10 ). Insen te nc in g C am ach o- Reyes to anab ov e-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e o f 33
m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, t he di st ric t co urt s ta te d e xp li ci tl y th atitwas app lying an up wardva ria nc e an d d idno t ci te to a gu id el in es de pa rtu re p ro vi si on . It s ta te d t ha t itha d c on si de redall of t he fact or s i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a) an d fo cu se d s pe ci fic al ly on th e n eedto pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, to affo rdad equa te de te rren ce, an d t o pr ot ectth e p ub li c fro m

Cam ach o- Reyes’s cri m in al co nduc t. The co urt t he n co nc lu de d t ha t the ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge di d n otacco un t ad equa te ly for Cam ach o- Reyes’s “ syste m at ic an d re pe at ed ” v io la ti on of o ur imm ig rat io n l aws , cri m in al hi st ory , andth reatto th e co m m un it y . Bas edon th e d is tri ctco urt’s l an gu ag e an d a na lysis , we con cl ud e th at Cam ach o- Reyes’s ab ov e-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e was th e res ul t o f anup wardva ria nc e, no t an up wardde pa rtu re. As a r es ul t, t he pro cedur es setforth in U.S.S.G. § 4 A1.3
were n otap pl ic ab le ; an d C am ach o- Reyes fai le d t o d em on st rat e th athi s s en te nc e is

3pr oc edur al ly unr eas on ab le
.

AFFIR MED.

4