FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 29, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 32 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cr-2 01 23 -J LK-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us ARMANDO VILLATORO-REYES, a.k .a. Jo rg e Mo ren o, a.k .a. Teod or o Os or io -Ma rti ne z, a.k .a. Carl os Reyes, a.k .a. Hern an anVald ez, a.k .a. Fran kl in Reyes, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 2 9, 2 01 2)Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Arm an do Vil la to ro -Reyes, wh o was co nv ic te d a fte r he pl ead edgu il ty to il le ga ll y reen te rin g t he Uni te d S ta te s af te r de po rta ti on foranag gr av at edfel on y , ap pe al s h is 70 -m on th pri so n s en te nc e, co nt en di ng th atitis subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . I. Vil la to ro -Reyes was de po rte d fr om th e Uni te d S ta te s i n 1 99 6 b ecau se he ha d b een co nv ic te d i n C al ifo rn iaof p os se ss io n fo r sa le of c oc ai ne ba se , an ag gr av at edfel on y . He reen te redth e Uni te d S ta te s i n 1 99 8 thr ou ghMi am i, Fl or id a. In20 11 he was a rres te d b y de po rta ti on off

ic ers an d i nd ic te d b y

a fed eral gr an d ju ry

for il le ga ll y reen te rin g t he Uni te d S ta te s af te r de po rta ti on foran ag gr av at edfel on y . See 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6( a), (b )(2 ). He pl ead edgu il ty to tha t ch arg e wit ho uta writ te n p le a ag reem en t. The pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort re co m m en de d aba se off

en se lev el of 8 un de r Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s § 2L1 .2(a ) (No v. 2 01 0) . It ad de d 1 6 le ve ls un de r § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(A) b ecau se Vil la to ro -Reyes was de po rte d a fte r be in g co nv ic te d o f a dru g t raff

ic ki ng off en se forwhi ch th e se nt en ce i m po se d e xc eed ed 13 m on th s, an d i t s ub tra ct ed3 l ev el s fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il ity un de r § 23E1 .1. The res ul t was a reco m m en de d t ot al off

en se lev el of 2 1. The PSR re vi ewedVil la to ro -Reyes’ ext en si ve cri m in al hi st ory , whi ch in cl ud edco nv ic ti on s fo r dr iv in g u nd er the in flu en ce, b at te ry , sal e o r tr an sp orta ti on of a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e (twice ), po ss es si onforsal e o f co cai ne ba se (twi ce), pr is on esc ap e wit ho utfor ce, driv in g wi th ou t a v al iddri ve r’s li cen se (th ree t im es ), an d re si st in g a n o ffi cer wi th ou t v io le nc e. His cri m in al hi st ory als o i nc lu de d ad di ti on al arre st s fo r bu rg la ry of a n o ccupi edco nv ey an ce, driv in g wi th ou t a v al id dr iv er’s l ic en se , DUI, andpo ss es si on of aco nt ro ll edsubs tanc e. The P SR cal cu la te d ato ta l o f 11 cri m in al hi st ory po in ts an d re co m

m en de d acri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of V. W it h ato ta l o ffen se lev el of 2 1 a nda cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of V, the ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge was 7 0– 87 m on th s i m pr is on m en t. The st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e fo r ree nt eri ng th e Uni te d S ta te s af te r de po rta ti on foran ag gr av at edfel on y

is 20 y ears . See 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6( b) (2 ). Vil la to ro -Reyes d idno t o bjec t t o t he cal cu la ti on of t he gu id el in es ran ge , bu t he ask edfora be lo w-th e-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e o f 30 m on th s. He arg ue d t ha t h is co nv ic ti on of p os se ss io n fo r sa le of c oc ai ne ba se was “ ge tt in g d oubl e sc or ed ” be cau se itwas u se d fo r th e U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(A) en ha nc em en t an d a ls o co un te d t owa rdhi s cr im in al hi st ory po in ts . He arg ue d t ha t, b as edonth e n atur e 3an d c irc um st an ces of h is off en se , hi s h is to ry

an d c ha ract eri st ic s, h is lac k o f

“ sc or ab le ” o ffen se s s in ce the m id -1 99 0s , th e “ fla wedna ture” o f § 2 L1.2 , andth e ot he r 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, a s en te nc e o f 30 m on th s was reas on ab le . The go ve rn m en t re qu es te d asen te nc e atth e b ot to m of t he gu id el in es ran ge . The di stric t co urt p oi nt edou t tha t Vi ll at or o- Reyes h adrece ntarre st s, o ne fo r a co nt ro ll edsubs tanc e v io la ti onin20 01 an d o ne fora bu rg la ry vi ol at io n i n 20 07 . It the n s ai d: “ If h e is co m m it ti ng cri m es , so m e o f th em pre tt y ser io us , I ha ve a li tt le di ffi cu lt y

with avaria nc e.” The co urt al so st at edth at“un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e p ro vi si on s o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3, i n c on si de rat io n o f th os e fact or s an d t he arg um en t o f co un se l, the bri efs an d m em or an du m . . . th ata se nt en ce wi th in th e g ui de li ne s i s t he ap pr op ria te sen te nc e to effe ctua te a fai r an d jus t s en te nc e.” Itsen te nc edVil la to ro -Reyes t o 7 0 m on th s i m pr is on m en t an d 3 y ears supe rv is edrel eas e. II. Vil la to ro -Reyes co nt en ds th athi s s en te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t p ro pe rly weig h t he 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. W e ap pl y anab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ardinrev ie win g asen te nc e. Uni te d S ta te s v. Whi te , 66 3 F .3d12 07 , 12 15 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Our s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss rev ie w is gu id edby the fact or s i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Id . at 1 21 7. Th e d is tri ct 4co urt i s re qu ire d t o i m po se a se nt en ce tha t i s “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er than ne ces sa ry , to co m

pl y with t he pu rp os es ” li st edinth atst atut ory pro vi si on . 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Tho se pu rp os es in cl ud e th e n eedto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of th e o ffen se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t o f th e o ffen se , de te r cri m in al co nduc t, p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m th e d efen da nt ’s futur e cri m in al co nduc t, an d p ro vi de th e d efen da ntwith n eed ededuc at io na l o r vo cat io na l trai ni ng orm ed ic al care . Id. § 35 53 (a)( 2) . Am on g o th er fa ct or s, the di st ric t co urt m us t al so co ns id er the na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se , th e h is to ry

an d ch arac te ris ti cs of t he de fen da nt , th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge , andth e n eedto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s. See id . § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (4 ), (6 ). The bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g t ha t a s en te nc e is un reas on ab le li es with t he pa rty chal le ng in g i t. Whit e, 66 3 F .3dat 1 21 7. We will va cat e a s en te nc e fo r subs ta nt iv e u nr eas on ab le ne ss “ if, b uton ly if, we are l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n wei gh in g th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s b y

arri vi ng at asen te nc e th atli es ou ts id e th e ran ge of reas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Irey, 61 2 F.3 d 1 16 0, 1 19 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (enba nc ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Vil la to ro -Reyes h as no t d em on st rat edth athi s s en te nc e is subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le . His 7 0- m on thsen te nc e is in si de th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e, an d 5“ al th ou ghwe do no t au to m at ic al ly pres um e a s en te nc e wit hi n t he gu id el in es ran ge

is reas on ab le , we ord in ari ly exp ecta se nt en ce wi th in th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e to be reas on ab le .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Hun t, 5 26 F.3d73 9, 7 46 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (al te rat io n an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . His s en te nc e is als o wel l b el ow t he st atut ory m ax im um pri so n t erm

of 2 0 years, s ee Un it edSta te s v . Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (h ol di ng th ata de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e was reas on ab le inpa rt be cau se itwas wel l b el ow t he st atut ory m ax im um ), an d t he reco rdsh ows th atth e co urt co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d Vi ll at or o- Reyes’ argu m en t fo r a b el owth e-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e. See Un it edSta te s v . Sco tt , 42 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 29 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th ata di st ric t co urt i s n otrequi red“ to st at e o n t he reco rdth at itha s ex pl ic it ly con si de redeachof t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s o r to di sc us s ea chof t he § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s” ). 1 AFFIRMED.

To the extent Villatoro-Reyes argues that the district cour t eng ag ed in double counting 1 by using a prior convic tion for both the U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.2 enhanc ement and f or ca lculatinghis criminal history

cate g ory , we r ejec t that argument. Double countingis permitted if the SentencingCommi ssion intended that result and the two guidelines sections ser ve diffe rent purposes. United States v. Ade leke, 968 F .2d 1159, 1161 (11th Cir. 1992). Criminal history cate g ories punish rec idivist s, and § 2L 1.2(b)( 1)(A) deter s aliens from r eente ringthe country afte r committing fe lonies. I d. 6