FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 27, 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. 06- 11214 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 1 4 0 6 1 - C R - KA M 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 F R A N C I S C O T I U , 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

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 27, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A pp el l antF ra nci sc o T i u app ea l s hi s 57-m on th sent ence for i l l egal re -e ntry2

in to th e U n ite d S ta te s , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) a n d ( b ) ( 2 ) . A t h is s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , T iu m o v e d f o rad o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .3 ( b ) , o n th e b a s is th a t h is c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry o v e r - r e p r e s e n te d h is cr i m i nal hi st ory. S peci fi ca l l y, T i u ass ert ed thathi s pri or cr i m i nal ac t i vi ty had been lim ite d to o n ly a n 1 8 to 2 0 - m o n th tim e p e r io d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d h is m ot i on , no t i ng thatthe re pet i t i on of offe nses du ri ng a s ho rtperi od of t i m e w ei gh ed agai nstgrant i ng a dow nw ar d d eparture. H ow ever , the di stri ctcourtdi d sent ence T i u t o the l ow e nd of

the appl i c abl e gui de l i ne r a nge of 57 t o 71 m onths im p r is o n m e n t, a f

te rc o n s id e r in g th e f

a c to r s lis te d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 35 53 (a ). O n app ea l , T i u argues thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on for a d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e w a s p r e m is e d o n am is ap p r e h e n s io n o f its a u th o r ity to g r a n t a departure. A l t ernat i vel y, T i u argues thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s r ea soni ng w as am bi gu ou s, t o the ext entthatre m and i s nec es sa ryt o cl ar i fyi t s rul i ng . T i u further assert s th ath i s sen t en ce w as u n reaso n ab l e i n l i g h to f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors b ecau se it w a s g r e a te rth a n n e c e s s a ry f o ra c h ie v in g s ta tu to ry g o a ls .

I. W e do n otno rm al l y r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a dow nw ar d d e p a r tu r e , e x c e p t in c a s e s w h e r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in c o rr e c tly b e lie v e d th a t it d id n o t h a v e th e au th o r ity to d e p a r t. U ni te d State s v . O r tega , 358 F . 3d 1278, 12793

( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . “W h e r e . . . th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s ta te m e n ts r e f le c t a n a m b ig u ity c o n c e rn in g its ab ilityto d e p a r t, w e r e s o lv e th e a m b ig u ity in f a v o ro f th e d e f e n d a n t” a n d r e v ie w th e c o u r t’s d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e d e c is io n . I d. , at12 79 n. 3. H ow ever ,

“ w e a s s um e the s e nt e nc i ng c our tunde r s t ood i tha d author i ty t o de pa r tdow nw a r d” w h e n th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t in d ic a te a n y a m b iv a le n c e . U n i ted S ta tes v. Ch a se , 174 F . 3d 11 93 , 11 95 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). A ft er U ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) , w e c ont i nue t o l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the d e c is io n o f

ad is tr ic t c o u r t n o t to ap p ly ad o w n w a r dd e p a r tu r e . See U ni ted Stat es v. W i ni nge ar , 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 45 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). B ec ause the re cord dem on stra t es thatthe di stri ctcourtre cogn i ze d thati thad th e a u th o rity to d ep ar t, w e w il l n o t rev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s d en ial o f T iu ’s m o tio n f o rad o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e . See W i ni nge ar , 4 2 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 5 . II. F ol l ow i ng the B oo ke rd eci si o n , w e h av e st at ed th atth e d i stri ctco u rtfi rst m ustcorr ec t l y c al cul at e the defendant ' s gui del i ne ra ng e, then, usi ng the § 3 55 3(a) se nt enci ng fa ct ors, the courtca n i m po se a m ore s ever e or m ore l eni entse nt ence , as lo n g a s it is r e a s o n ab le . U n i ted S ta tes v. Cra w

f o rd , 40 7 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 79 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e r e le v a n t § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s a r e : ( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e a nd the hi s t ory a nd char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant ; (2) the need for the se nt ence i m po se d4

( A ) t o r e f

l e c tthe s e r i ous ne s s of

the of f e ns e , t o pr om ot e r e s pe c tf orthe l aw , and t o p rovi de j ustpu ni shm entfor the offens e; (B ) t o aff ord a d e q u a te d e te rr e n c e to c r im in a l c o n d u c t; ( C ) to p r o te c t th e p u b lic f r om f ur the rc r i m e s of

the de f e nda nt ; a nd ( D ) t o pr ovi de the de f e nda nt w i th ne e de d [ tr e a tm e nt ] ; ( 3) the ki nds of s e nt e nc e s a va i l abl e ; ( 4) the ki nds of s e nt e nc e a nd the s e nt e nc i ng r a nge . . . ; ( 5) a ny pe r t i ne nt pol i c y s t a t e m e nt. . . i s s ue d by the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on . . . ; ( 6) the n e e d to a v o id u n w a rr a n te d s e n te n c e d is p a r itie s a m o n g d e f e n d a n ts w ith s i m i l a rr e c or ds w ho ha ve be e n f ound gui l ty of

s i m i l a rc onduc t ; a nd (7) the need t o p rovi de re st i tut i on t o any vi ct i m s of the offens e. 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ; B oo ke r , 54 3 U . S . at25 9-61 , 12 5 S . C t . at76 4-66 . “ R evi ew for r ea sonabl enes s i s def er ent i al . ” U

ni ted Stat es v. T

al ley , 431 F . 3d 784, 788 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A s e n te n c e w ith in th e a d v is o ry g u id e lin e r a n g e is n o t p er se r e a s o n ab le , b u t is e x p e c te d to b e r e a s o n ab le . See i d. S i nc e the di s tr i c tc our tdi d c ons i de rthe § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , tha ti s e nough, a nd we c o n c l u d e th a tT i u ’ s l o w- e n d s e n t e n c e i s n o tu n r e a s o n ab l e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we af fi rm hi s s ent ence . AF F I RME D.