FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 28, 2006 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. 05- 15326 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 1 0 0 0 5 - C R - K MM 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 J O S E L U I S G O N Z A L E Z , 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 28, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

Jose L ui s G on za l ez appeal s hi s 12-m on th sent ence , i m po se d aft erhe pl ed g u ilty p u r s u a n t to a n a g r e e m e n t to a m is d e m e a n o rc o u n t o f c o n s p ir a c y to s m u g g le al i ens, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 3 71 . O n app ea l , he ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt e rr e d by f

a i l i ng e xpl i c i t l y t o a c know l e dge tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the s e nt e nc i ng f a c to r s s e t f

o r th a t 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a n d a d d itio n a lly im p o s e d a n u n r e a s o n a b le s e n t e n c e . Fo rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. A tthe pl e a he a r i ng, the c our tc l a r i f i e d tha tG onz a l e z w a s c ha r ge d w i th a m i s de m e a nora nd unde r s t ood tha the f a c e d up t o one y e a ri n pr i s on. T he go vernm ent ’ s f

ac tual st at em ent , t o w hi ch G on za l ez agre ed, w as thatG on za l ez c a l l e d hi s w i f

e on D e c e m be r5, 2004, a nd i ndi c a t e d tha the a nd appr oxi m a t e l y 20 othe r s w e r e i n a boa ttha tw a s s i nki ng a ts e a . G onz a l e z ga ve hi s c oor di na t e s , a nd h is w ife c o n tacted th e U .S . C o as t G u ar d , w h ich re sp o n d ed an d lo ca ted G o n za lez’s v e s s e l . Th e v e s s e l w a s f o u n d t o c o n t a i n 2 4 Cu b a n n a t i o n a l s , a s w e l l a s 2 U . S. parol ee s, on e of w ho m w as G on za l ez . G on za l ez gave a s t at em ent , i nd i ca t i ng that he had g on e t o C ub a t o p i ck up the w i fe of on e of the ot her defe nd ant s i n the ca se , bu t , w hen t hey a rr i ved i n C ub a, a num ber of peopl e had l ea rned abou tthe pl anned tri p, and, despi t e G on za l ez ’ s prot es t s, these peop l e boarded the vess el . G on za l ez a dm i tt e d hi s gui l t , a nd hi s pl e a w a s a c c e pt e d. T he pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(P S I) se tG on za l ez ’ s bas e off ense l evel3

a t12, pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 1( a ) ( 2) . A 6- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntw a s a dde d, pur s ua ntt o § 2L 1. 1( b) ( 2) ( B ) , be c a us e G onz a l e z ha d s m uggl e d be tw e e n 24 a nd 100 unl a w f ul a l i e ns . A nothe rtw o l e ve l s w e r e a dde d be c a us e the of f e ns e i nvol ve d the in te n tio n a l o rr e c k le s s c r e a tio n o f a s u b s ta n tia l r is k o f

d e a th o rs e r io u s b o d ily i nj ury t o ano ther pers on , U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 1(b)(5). N ext , tw o m ore l evel s w er e a dde d be c a us e G onz a l e z ha d us e d s pe c i a l s ki l l

— boa tdr i vi ng— t o f a c i l i t a t e the com m i ss i on of the offens e, U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 3. F i nal l y, G on za l ez re ce i ved a 3-l evel re du ct i on for a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty und erU . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1, for at ot al o f f e n s e le v e l o f

1 9 . W ith n o p r io rc r im in a l h is to ry , G o n z a le z w a s p la c e d in cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory I , w hi ch, atoffe nse l evel 19 , prov i ded for a r e c om m e nde d s e nt e nc i ng r a nge of 30 t o 37 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . H ow e ve r , the s t a tu t o ry ma x i mu m s e n t e n c e w a s 1 2 mo n th s ’ i mp r i s o n me n t , a n d , th e r e f o r e , th e PSI in d ic a te d th a t th e g u id e lin e r a n g e w a s 1 2 m o n th s . A t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , th e c o u rt, w ith o u t o b je c tio n f r o m th e g o v e rn m e n t, grant ed G on za l ez a three -l evel re du ct i on because the offens e w as no tcom m i tt ed for profi t . T he courtal so grant ed G on za l ez ’ s obj ec t i on t o the si x-l evel e n h a n c e m e n t f

o rth e n u m b e ro f

a lie n s in v o lv e d , r e d u c in g th e e n h a n c e m e n t to o n ly a thr e e - l e ve l e nha nc e m e nt . A ttha tpoi nt , G onz a l e z i ndi c a t e d tha t , ul t i m a t e l y , he bel i eved thathi s t ot al offe nse l evel shou l d b e 10, w hi ch w ou l d p rovi de for a4

s e n te n c in g r a n g e o f

6 to 1 2 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. A s to G o n z a le z ’s o b je c tio n to the e nha nc e m e ntf

orr e c kl e s s c r e a t i on of

a s ubs t a nt i a l r i s k of

de a th ors e r i ous b o d ily in ju ry , th e c o u r t w a s ap p r e h e n s iv e b e c a u s e th e r e w e r e n o t e n o u g h lif e v e s ts o n th e b o atfo r ev eryo n e w h o b o ard ed , b u tsu st ai n ed G o n zal ez’ s o b j ect i o n an yw ay, appa r e nt l y be c a us e the c our tdi d notbe l i e ve tha ti tw oul d ha ve a n i m pa c ton the ac tual se nt ence i m po se d. F i nal l y, as t o the “ spec i al ski l l ” e nh ance m ent , the court sust ai ned G on za l ez ’ s obj ec t i on af t erbei ng re as sure d thatG on za l ez ’ s off ense l evel w o u ld r e m a in a t 6 to 1 2 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t,. G onz a l e z the n r e que s t e d a s e nt e nc e a tthe l ow e nd of the gui de l i ne r a nge or l ow er , ar gu i ng thathe had n everhad any cont ac tw i th the cr i m i nal j ust i ce sy st em si nce a rr i vi ng i n the U ni t ed S t at es i n 1 99 6 and had d em on stra t ed an exem pl ary w ork record, usi ng hi s e l ec tri ca l degree t o st arthi s ow n b usi ness . G on za l ez no t ed tha thi s f a m i l y w a s ve ry c l os e a nd s ugge s t e d tha the w a s e l i gi bl e f ora “ s tr a i ght p r o b a tio n s e n te n c e ” o ra “le n g th y te r m o f h o m e c o n f

in e m e n t c o u p le d w ith c o m m u n ity s e r v ic e ,” a s h is e le c tr ic a l s e r v ic e s c o u ld b e p r o v id e d to n e e d y c h a r itie s . F i nal l y, G on za l ez st at ed thatthe ci rc um st ance s of hi s c as e— go i ng t o C ub a t o p i ck u p a r e la tiv e a n d e n d in g u p w ith a d d itio n a l p e o p le b o a r d in g h is b o a t c o n tr a ry to h is di r e c t i ons — di d notw a rr a nta s e nt e nc e of i nc a r c e r a t i on. T he c our tthe n a s ke d w he the ri tw a s m i s t a ke n i n ha vi ng r e a d, 2 w e e ks5

e a r l i e r , tha ts om e 30 pe opl e w ho ha d l e f tC uba s t i l l ha d notbe e n l oc a t e d, a nd G o n z a le z a d m itte d th a t th e c o u r t w a s c o rr e c t. G o n z a le z s ta te d , h o w e v e r , th a t h is case d i d n o ti n v o l v e trav el i n g t o C u b a t o retri ev e 3 0 p eo p l e i n ex ch an g e fo r m o n ey, buti ns t e a d i nvol ve d hi m tr a ve l i ng t o C uba t o pi c k up hi s ne phe w ’ s w i f e . T he c our ti ndi c a t e d tha tw he the rG onz a l e z w e ntt o C uba s e e ki ng a pr of i tw a s be s i de the poi nt , but , i n a ny c a s e , the s e nt e nc i ng r a nge tha tG onz a l e z r e que s t e d w a s 6 t o 12 m onths , a nd, i n the c our t ’ s opi ni on, a ny s e nt e nc e tha ti ti m pos e d w i thi n tha tr a nge w ou l d b e r ea sonabl e. N e xt , the c our te xpr e s s e d tha ti tw a s “ c ur i ous ” a s t o w hy the gove rnm e nt ha d c hos e n t o c ha r ge G onz a l e z w i th onl y a m i s de m e a nor , gi ve n the num be rof p e o p le in v o lv e d , b e c a u s e th e c o u r t b e lie v e d th a t it w a s “in h e r e n tly d a n g e r o u s to e n g a g e in th is ty p e o f

a c tiv ity a n d p a r tic u la r ly s o w h e n y o u ’r e b r in g in g p e o p le w i thoutthe pr ope rs a f

e ty e qui pm e nt . ” T he c our tc l a r i f i e d tha ti tw a s not in te rp r e tin g th e g u id e lin e s , b u t ju s t q u e s tio n in g “f r o m a c o m m o n s e n s e s ta n d p o in t . . . w h y th e g o v e rn m e n t c h a r g e d th is w ith a m is d e m e a n o r .” T h e c o u r t s u b s e q u e n tly s e nt e nc e d G onz a l e z t o 12 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , the s t a tut ory m a xi m um a nd hi ghe s ta va i l a bl e gui de l i ne s e nt e nc e . G onz a l e z obj e c t e d tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s not r e a s ona bl e unde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s of the c a s e . T he c our tr e s ponde d tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s “ w i thi n the gui de l i ne s , ” t o w hi c h G onz a l e z a gr e e d.6

O n appe a l , G onz a l e z a r gue s tha the “ di d notr e c e i ve a f a i rs e nt e nc i ng pr oc e s s ora r e a s ona bl e s e nt e nc e f r om the di s tr i c tc our tf

orthe c r i m e he com m i tt ed. ” G on za l ez ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o con si der the § 3 55 3(a) se nt enci ng fa ct ors, gave un du e w ei gh tt o a new spaperart i cl e, and i m po se d an u n reaso n ab l e st atu t o ry m ax i m u m sen t en ce t o a fi rst -t i m e o ffen d er. S p eci fi cal l y, G on za l ez ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtw as re qu i re d t o, atthe very l ea st , consi der al l of the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, no tj ustthe gu i del i nes, and t he di stri ctcourt ’ s s ent ence he r e w a s unr e a s ona bl e be c a us e i tne gl e c t e d t o c ons i de rf a c t or s othe rtha n the gui de l i ne r a nge . H e f

ur the ra r gue s tha ta s e nt e nc e w i thi n the gui de l i ne r a nge i s not pe rs e r e a s ona bl e , a nd hi s 12- m onth s e nt e nc e , w hi c h a dm i tt e dl y w a s w i thi n the gui de l i ne r a nge , i s unr e a s ona bl e be c a us e : ( 1) nothi ng i n the r e c or d s how s tha tthe courtconsi dere d the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors bef ore i m po si ng a s ent ence ; (2) the court ga ve undue w e i ghtt o a n i nc i de ntr e por t e d i n the l oc a l pr e s s , a tthe e xpe ns e of the othe r§ 3553( a ) f

a c t or s ; a nd ( 3) hi s c r i m i na l c onduc tde m ons tr a t e d a l a c k of i nt e nt t o d o anythi ng m ore than b ri ng on e per son t o the U ni t ed S t at es . G on za l ez no t es th a t h is c o d e f

e n d a n t a ls o r e c e iv e d a o n e - y e a rs e n te n c e , b u t a r g u e s th a t h is c ode f e nda ntw a s m or e c ul pa bl e be c a us e he a c t i ve l y r e c rui t e d, pl a nne d, a nd f in a n c e d th e tr ip . F in a lly , h e a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s g r e a te rth a n n e c e s s a ry to ach i ev e § 3 5 5 3 (a)’ s sen t en ci n g g o al s.7

W he r e a de f

e nda ntc ha l l e nge s hi s ove r a l l s e nt e nc e , w e r e vi e w f or un 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. 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 261- 62, 125 S . C t . 738, 765- 66, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) ( hol di ng tha tappe l l a t e c our t s r e vi e w s e nt e nc e s f or u n r e a s o n a b le n e s s in lig h t o f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s ) . W e h a v e h e ld th a t “n o th in g in B oo ker or e l se w here re qu i re s the di stri ctcourtt o st at e on t he re cord thati thas e xpl i c i t l y c ons i de r e d e a c h of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s ort o di s c us s e a c h of the § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . S c o tt, 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A n a c k n o w le d g m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s c o n s id e r e d a d e f e n d a n t’s a r g u m e n ts a nd the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s i s s uf

f i c i e ntunde rB ooke r . I d. A tth e t i me o f

G o n z a l e z ’ s s e n t e n c i n g o n Se p t e mb e r8 , 2 0 0 5 , th e Su p r e me C our tha d i s s ue d i t s rul i ng i n B ooke r , r e nde r i ng the gui de l i ne s a dvi s ory onl y , a nd, the r e f or e , the di s tr i c tc our t , w hi l e r e qui r e d t o c ons ul ta nd pr ope r l y c a l c ul a t e the gu i del i ne ra ng e, w as no tbo un d b y the re com m ended range of 6 to 12 m on ths. S ee B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . at25 9-60 , 12 5 S . C t . at76 4-65 (e xci si ng the m andat ory appl i c a t i on of

the gui de l i ne s ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 1178 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( ho l di ng that , al tho ug h the gu i del i nes a re advi sory af t erB oo ker, the di s tr i c tc our ti s s t i l l bound t o c ons ul tthe m a nd a c c ur a t e l y c a l c ul a t e the s e nt e nc i ng r a nge ) . W e ha ve r e j e c t e d the not i on tha ta s e nt e nc e w i thi n the8

gu i del i nes i s perse re as on abl e, al tho ug h “ the use of the G ui del i nes r em ai ns ce ntra l t o the se nt enci ng proces s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 7 (11 th C i r. 2005) . W e ha ve f

ur the rs t a t e d tha t , “ the r e i s a r a nge of r e a s ona bl e s e nt e nc e s f

r om w hi ch the di stri ctcourtm ay choo se , and w hen t he di stri ctcourti m po se s ase nt ence w i thi n the advi sory G ui del i nes r ange, w e ordi nari l y w i l l expectthatchoi ce t o b e a r e a s o n a b le o n e .” I d . a t 7 8 8 . T urni ng f

i r s tt o the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s , a r e vi e w of

the s e nt e nc i ng tr a ns c r i pt r e ve a l s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d not , a ta ny poi nt , s o m uc h a s m e nt i on or a c know l e dge tha tthe § 3553( a ) f a c t or s e xi s t e d ortha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the m . T he onl y thi ngs e xpl i c i t l y r e f e r e nc e d by the di s tr i c tc our ti n thi s c a s e w e r e the gu i del i nes a nd the P S I. E ven d uri ng i t s prono un ce m entof the se nt ence , the court di d noti ndi c a t e w he the ri tha d c ons i de r e d othe r§ 3553( a ) f a c t or s . T hi s doe s not appear t o b e i n exp l i ci tcom pl i ance w i th o ur ho l di ng i n S cottthata di stri ctcourt m e e ts its p o s t- B o o k e rs e n te n c in g o b lig a tio n s b y “e x p lic itly ” a c k n o w le d g in g th a t it had con si dere d a defendant ’ s a rgum ent s a tse nt enci ng and t hati thad con si dere d the f a c t or s s e tf

or th i n § 3553( a ) . S e e S c ott , 426 F . 3d a t1330. I ta l s o doe s not st and o n al l fours w i th o ur deci si on i n T al l ey , w here w e hel d thatthe di stri ctcourt prop er l y c on si dere d the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors w hen i tst at ed on the re cord that“ [b] as ed on a l l the f

a c t s a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of thi s c a s e , [ i tthought ] tha tthe gui de l i ne s do9

pr oduc e a f

a i ra nd r e a s ona bl e s e nt e nc e c ons i de r i ng the f a c t or s s e tf

or th i n 18, s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ” a n d p r o c e e d e d to p r o v id e f u r th e re x p la n a tio n f

o rits s e n te n c e . T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t786. W hi l e w e have nothad o cc as i on t o con si der the ca se w here a di stri ctcourt al t og ether f

ai l s t o m ent i on thati thad con si dere d the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, other ci rc ui t s, such as the S ec on d C i rc ui t , have pres um ed, “ i n the abse nce of r ec ord evi dence s ug gest i ng otherw i se , thata s ent enci ng j ud ge has f ai thful l y di sc harged he rduty t o c ons i de rthe s t a tut ory f a c t or s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F e rna nde z , 443 F . 3d 1 9 , 3 0 ( 2 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . “I n o th e rw o r d s , n o ‘r o b o tic in c a n ta tio n s ’ a r e r e q u ir e d to p ro v e th e f

ac t o f c o n sid er atio n .” Id . In d ee d , as th e F irst C ircu itn o ted , “ a c o u rt’s r e a s oni ng c a n of

t e n be i nf

e rr e d by c om pa r i ng w ha tw a s a r gue d by the pa r t i e s or c ont a i ne d i n the pr e - s e nt e nc e r e por tw i th w ha tthe j udge di d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Ji m enez -B el tre , 44 0 F . 3d 51 4, 51 9 (1stC i r. 20 06 ). T he S i xth C i rc ui tsi m i l ar l y has he l d tha ta di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a i l ur e e xpl i c i t l y t o c ons i de rthe § 3553( a ) f a c t or s i s not error, abse ntsom e i nd i ca t i on thatthe courtaf fi rm at i vel y i gn ored the fa ct ors. S ee U n ite d S ta te s v . W illia m s , 4 3 6 F .3 d 7 0 6 , 7 0 8 ( 6 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . W e a g r e e w ith th e r e a s o n in g o f o u rs is te rc ir c u its a n d h o ld th a t d is tr ic t c o u r ts do nota ut om a t i c a l l y e rrby e xpl i c i t l y f a i l i ng t o s t a t e tha tthe y ha ve c ons i de r e d the § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors at som e p o i n td u ri n g sen t en ci n g p ro ceed i n g s. In m an y cases,We do n ote , h ow e ver, a s did t heSe c on d Circuit , th at di stric t c ourt s a ree nc ourag e d to 1 fac ilitate reviewby

providingcomplete a

nd detailed e xplanations reg ardingtheir sentenc ing decisions. Fernande z, 446 F.3d at 30 n.8. Nothingin this opi nion should be read as dispensing wi th t here quire ment t

hat th e§ 3 55 3( a) f

a c tor s b edis c us se d at sentenc ing . Thefailureto expli citly mention a spec ific factor, however, w ill not automatically be considered a

n error requiringa remand. 10 s uc h a s thi s one , a s di s c us s e d be l ow , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e a s ons f ori m pos i ng a se nt ence ar e c l ea r f

rom the re cord and i n com pl i ance w i th the st atut ory re qu i re m ent s of § 35 53 (a ). A bsentan af fi rm at i ve i nd i ca t i on thatthe fa ct ors w er e 1 no tconsi dere d, w e m ay pres um e thatdi stri ctcourt s a re fol l ow i ng the l aw . S ee F e rna nde z , 446 F . 3d a t30. T urni ng t o the i nst antca se , the di stri ctcourt ’ s quest i on s a nd com m ent s, as w el l as the ar gu m ent s m ade by G on za l ez concerni ng the approp ri at e s ent ence , show thatthe court , w hether e xp l i ci t l y or not , consi dere d sever al § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors w h en d eter m in in g an ap p ro p riate s en ten ce . F irst, th e c o u rt h ea rd G o n za lez’s ar gu m entthathe w as a f i rs t -t i m e off

ender w i th n o o ther e ncou nt er s w i th the j ust i ce s y s t e m a nd a r e l i a bl e w or ke rw ho ha d s t a r t e d hi s ow n e l e c tr i c a l bus i ne s s . T he courtal so hear d evi dence of G on za l ez ’ s c l ose f am i l y t i es , and h ea rd G on za l ez a r g u e th a t h e c o u ld b e e lig ib le f o rp r o b a tio n o rh o m e d e te n tio n w ith c o m m u n ity s e r vi c e . T he s e tw o f

a c t or s a r e c ove r e d unde rthe § 3553( a ) f a c t or s a s hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of

the de f e nda nt , a s w e l l a s the ty pe s of s e nt e nc e s a va i l a bl e . S e e 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( 3 ) .11

H o w ev er, th e co u rtw as m o re co n cern ed th atth e seri o u sn ess o f th e o ffen se w a s b e in g u n d e r s ta te d b y b o th G o n z a le z a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t, a n d e x p lic itly qu es t i on ed G on za l ez abou ta r ec enti nci denti n w hi ch 30 C ub ans l ef t C u b a— ap p a r e n tly b y b o a t— a n d h a d n o t b e e n f o u n d . T h e c o u r t a ls o f

o u n d th a t, w h e th e ro rn o t G o n z a le z r e c e iv e d a n e n h a n c e m e n t f o rr e c k le s s e n d a n g e r m e n t, h is c onduc tw a s “ i nhe r e nt l y da nge r ous ” a nd “ pa r t i c ul a r l y s o w he n y ou’ r e br i ngi ng pe opl e w i thoutthe pr ope rs a f e ty e qui pm e nt , ” a s G onz a l e z ha d a dm i tt e d. T he se ri ou snes s of the offens e i s aperm i ss i bl e groun d o n w hi ch t o b as e ase nt ence , as is d e te rr e n c e o f

f u tu r e c r im in a l c o n d u c t. S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) - ( B ) . W hi l e G onz a l e z a r gue d tha the ne ve ri nt e nde d t o tr a ns por t25 pe opl e w i thout a n a de qua t e num be rof

l i f e pr e s e r ve r s , G onz a l e z i gnor e s the f a c ttha the consci ou sl y dec i ded t o tra nspo rtthese peop l e a ft erthey boarded hi s boat . W hether ornottha tw a s hi s i nt e ntw he n he tr a ve l e d t o C uba i s i rr e l e va nt

— a s c apt a i n of the bo at , he coul d h ave deci ded n ott o tra vel t o F l ori da w i th the 25 addi t i on al pass engers , bu ti nst ea d, he deci ded t o m ake the tri p, confront i ng a r i sk thatthe bo at w oul d notbe a bl e t o m a ke the tr i p. T ha tr i s k m a t e r i a l i z e d, a nd, a c c or di ng t o the P S I , G onz a l e z t e l e phone d hi s w i f e w he n the boa tbe ga n t o t a ke on w a t e r , a nd s he co n t act ed th e C o astG u ard , w h i ch m an ag ed t o rescu e al l o f th e p assen g ers j u st before the bo atsa nk . O n thi s r ec ord, w e c anno tsa y thatthe di stri ctcourt , w hi ch12

i m po se d the 12 -m on th m axi m um se nt ence for am i sdem ea no r, fa shi on ed an un re as on abl e s ent ence . C f. U ni t ed S t at es v. E l di ck, 44 3 F . 3d 78 3, 79 0 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ) ( af fi rm i ng as re as on abl e adi stri ctcourt ’ s i m po si t i on of consec ut i ve st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence s, i n l i gh tof the se ri ou snes s of the defendant ’ s off ense ). B as ed on the foregoi ng , w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s f ai l ure e xpl i c i t l y t o m e nt i on tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s w a s note rr or because the re cord suff

i ci ent l y dem on stra t ed thatthe courtconsi dere d the P S I, as w e ll a s th e a r g u m e n ts m a d e b y G o n z a le z , a n d its q u e s tio n s a n d c o m m e n ts in d ic a te tha t , e xpl i c i t l y ornot , the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s w e r e appl i e d. M or e ove r , w e c a nnot s a y , b a s e d o n th is r e c o r d , th a t G o n z a le z ’s 1 2 - m o n th s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n a b le . W e , th e r e f

o r e , a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.