FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 4, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 23 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 01 69 -RAL-TGW -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll ee, vers us FERNANDO GARCIA-CERVANTES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 4, 2 01 1) Befo re HULL, W ILSON an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Fern an do Garci a-Ce rv an te s ap pe al s the 60 -m on th , abo ve -Gu id el in es se nt en ce h e rec ei ve d a fte r he pl ead edgu il ty to b ei ng fou ndinth e Uni te d S ta te sfo ll owi ng de po rta ti on foranag gr av at edfel on y , invi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6( a)

an d (b )(2 ). He rai se s two ar gu m en ts to ch al le ng e th e rea so nabl en es s o f hi s

1 se nt en ce. As n ei th er i s p ers ua si ve , we affi rm th e d eci si onof t he di stric t co urt. I. W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e im po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt un de r th e ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1, 2 12 8 S . Ct. 5 86 (20 07 ). Thatst an da rdall ows fora ran ge of a ccep tabl e se nt en ces . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 89 (11 thCir . 20 10 ) (en ba nc ). As l on g a s th e se nt en ce d oe s n otde m on st rat e a cl ear e rro r in jud gm en t, i t wi ll be affi rm ed . Id . Whe n e va lu at in g t he reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e, we en ga ge ina two -s te p pr oc es s. Fi rs t, we v eri fy

th atth e d is tri ctco urt i m

po se d asen te nc e fre e fro m an y pr oc edur al erro r, “ su chas f ai li ng to cal cu la te (or

im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g t he Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, s el ect in g asen te nc e b as edoncle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e—i nc lu di ng anex pl an at io n fo r an y The a pplicable Guide lines rang e wa s 33–41 months. 1 The Gove rnment argues for plain-er ror r eview. H oweve r, bec ause w e conc lude that 2 Gar cia- Cervante s does not succe ed under an abuse -of- discretion standa rd, we need not r esolve that issue. 2de vi at io n fr om th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e.” Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 . If the sen te nc e is pro cedur al ly reaso nabl e, we ne xtev al ua te it s s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss . Id . The d is tri ctco 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 tha n n eces sa ry , to co m pl y with t he pu rp os es li st edin18 U.S.C. § 3 55 2( a)(2 ). Id . at 5 0 n .6. Inde te rm in in g t he ap pr op ria te sen te nc e, it m us t co ns id er the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces an d t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, in cl ud in g, in te r a li a , th e n atur e an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se , th e ch arac te ris ti cs of t he de fen da nt , th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ra ng e, an d the ne edto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s. Id . at 5 1. A su cces sf ul sen te nc in g di sp ari ty clai m

requi res th e d efen da ntto pro ve th athe rece iv eda m or e se ve re se nt en ce tha n s im il arl y

si tu at edin di vi du al s. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. S po erke , 56 8 F.3 d 1 23 6, 1 25 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . A defe nd an t s eek in g re li ef b as edon a se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty cann otpre se ntba re s ta ti st ic al ev id en ce, witho utco nt ex t, as th atwou ldno t s uf

fic ie nt ly establ is h t ha t h e is ina co m pa rab le factua l ci rcu m st an ce t o t he in di vi du al s co ns id eredinco m pi li ng th e d at a. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ca mpb el l , 49 1 F .3d13 06 , 13 17 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). The di stric t co urt’s ex pl an at io n fo r a v ari an ce fr om th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e

“ m us t b e co m

pe ll in g e no ug h t o s up po rt t he de gr ee o f th e v ari an ce an d c om pl et e en ou ghto all ow m ean in gf ul ap pe ll at e rev ie w.” Uni te d Sta tes v. S ha w , 56 0 F .3d 312 30 , 12 38 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Fact s al read y

co ns id eredinth e Gui de li ne s ca lc ul at io n m ay pro pe rly j us ti fy

a va rianc e if

th ey

“ fit [] squ arel y

in to on e o f th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s.” Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 52 6 F .3d13 12 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m). II. Garci a-Ce rv an te s’s fi rs t ar gu m en t ch al le ng es th e rea so nabl en es s o f di st ric t co urts inth e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t as anin st itut io n. He craft s h is cla im aro un d 3 st at is ti cal ev id en ce re le as edby the Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Co m mis si on . He arg ue s tha t h is sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se di st ric t co urts inth e Elev en thCir cu itim

po se ab ov e-Gu id el in es sen te nc es ina hi gh er p erce nt ag e o f cri m in al cas es in vo lv in g i m m ig rat io n i ss ue s than d is tri ctco urts na ti on al ly. Sp eci fic al ly, ab ov e-Gu id el in es sen te nc es are i m po se d i n 1 .66 % of c riminal imm ig rat io n c as es na ti on al ly, bu t the y are i m po se d i n 2 .5% o f th os e cas es inth e Elev en thCir cu it . Mor eo ve r, in th e Fi fth an d Ni nt h C irc ui ts , whi chha nd le far m or e imm ig rat io n c as es , abo ve -Gu id el in es sen te nc es are i m po se d i n 1 .77 % an d 0.8 8% o f cas es , res pe ct iv el y . Accor di ng ly, Garci a-Ce rv an te s co nt en ds th atdi st ric t co urts inth e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t h av e cre at edanun warra nt edsen te nc in g d is pa rit y . It is unclear whether

this is a stand-alone a

rgument or is simply

intended to put this 3 Court on notice that we should c are fully scrutinize sentence s in criminal immigra tion cases. We view the a

rgument through both lenses. 4Garci a-Ce rv an te s’s ar gu m en t fa il s t o c reat e th e requi si te ne xu s b etweenth e

cas es th atform

th e b as is forth e st at is ti cs an d h is own . Whi le he refe rs to th e br oa d c at eg or ie s d es cri be d i n t he Sen te nc in g C ommis si on ’s rep ort, h e fai ls to de sc rib e th e sp eci fic factua l co nt ex t i nv ol ve d i n a ny of th e cas es . There fo re, n o m ean in gf ul co m pa ris on canbe dra wn o n t he ba si s o f th e st at is ti cs off ered . The di st ric t co urt p oi nt edto fact s s pe ci fic to Garci a-Ce rv an te s i n re ach in g i ts co nc lu si on , andth e st at is ti cs off ereddo no t re nd er i ts de te rm in at io n u nr eas on ab le . III. Garci a-Ce rv an te s n ex t ra is es m or e tr ad it io na l ch al le ng es to hi s s en te nc e. He fi rs t ar gu es th athi s s en te nc e is pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ct co urt fa il edto supp ly adequa te jus ti fic at io n fo r it s d eci si on to im po se a 60 -m on th se nt en ce. Sp eci fic al ly, he ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s re li an ce o n h is pre vi ou s cri m in al tra ns gr es si on s t o ju st ify an upwa rdva ria nc e b ecau se th os e cri m es were us edinth e cal cu la ti on of h is Gui de li ne s rang e. Furth erm or e, he co nt en ds th atth e di st ric t co urt i m

po se d asen te nc e th atwas s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le as i t was lo ng er tha n n eces sa ry

to pro m ot e th e se nt en ci ng go al s arti cu la te d b y Co ng res s. The d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n was ne it he r pr oc edur al ly nor subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . The d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly calc ul at edth e Gui de li ne s ran ge , bas edth e se nt en ce o n u nd is pu te d fa ct s, an d c on si de redth e § 35 53 (a) 5fact or s. Whil e th e se nt en ce i m po se d d idex ceedth e Gui de li ne s rang e, th e d is tri ct co urt p ro vi de d am ean in gf ul expl an at io n fo r th e v ari an ce. Itto okin to acco un t a nu m be r of fact or s u ni qu e to Garci a-Ce rv an te s, s uc h a s h is imm ed ia te re-e nt ry aft er hi s i ni ti al de po rta ti on an d t he clo se tem po ral pro xi m it y

of h is off en se s. Alt ho ug h th es e cri m es were p artof t he Gui de li ne s ca lc ul at io n, the di st ric t co urt ap pr op ria te ly con si de redth em as p artof t he hi st ory

an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e de fen da nt . Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ). In e xe rci si ng it s d is cret io n, the di stric t co urt u lt im at el y

de te rm in edth ata 60 -m on th sen te nc e was ne ces sa ry to “ refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he off

en se an d d et er[] futur e cri m in al co nduc t, es pe ci al ly [Garcia Cerv an te s’s] futur e cri m in al co nduc t, an d p ro te ct [] the publ ic , and[] pr om ot e res pe ctforth e la w.” Thatco nc lu si on do es no t co ns ti tu te anab us e o f di sc ret io n. IV. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm Garci a-Ce rv an te s’s s en te nc e. AFFIRMED.

6