[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 15 37 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cr-0 03 05 -WSD-GGB-1
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us MOISES C ASTANON-CHADNES, 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 fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m be r 7, 2 01 2)
Befo re CARNES, WILSON, andEDMONDSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-15371 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 1 of 5Mo is es Cas ta no n- Ch adne s ap pe al s h is 46 -m on th sen te nc e, im po se d aft er h e p le ad edgu il ty to re en te rin g i ll eg al ly the Uni te d S ta te s af te r be in g de po rte d s ub se qu en t t o an a gg rav at edfel on y co nv ic ti on , in vi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C
. § 1 32 6( a) an d (b )(2 ). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af firm . W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e u nd er a “ de fere nt ia l ab us e-o fdi sc ret io n s ta nd ard .” Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 41 , 12 8 S .Ct. 5 86 , 59 1, 16 9 L.Ed .2d44 5 (2 00 7) . “ The rev ie w forsubs tant iv e u nr eas on ab le ne ss in vo lv es
ex am in in g t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g a n i nqui ry in to whet he r th e st atut ory fact or s i n [1 8 U.S.C.] § 3 55 3( a) s up po rt the sen te nc e in qu es ti on .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e d o n ot 1 ap pl y “ a p res um

pt io n o f rea so nabl en es s” to sen te nc es wit hi n t he gu id el in e ran ge . Uni te d S ta te s v . Pha kn ik on e, 60 5 F .3d10 99 , 11 07 (11 th Cir .), cert . den ie d, 1 31 S.Ct . 64 3 (2 01 0) . Butwe “ or di na ril y ex pe ct ” a wit hi n- gu id el in e se nt en ce t o b e
reas on ab le , andwil l o nl y rem an d fo r res en te nc in g i f th e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d a

Under section 3553(a), a s en t en ci n g court must impose a sentence that is “suff icient, but not 1 g reater than nece ssary” to comply with the purposes of sentencing s et forth in section 3553(a)(2) , which include the need to ref lect the seriousness of the offe nse, promote respe ct for the law, provide just punishment for the offe nse, deter criminal conduct, and protec t the public from the defe ndant’s further crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2). Other fac tors to be considere d in imposing a sentenc e include the nature and circ umstances of the offe nse, the history and char acte ristics of the defe ndant, the available sentenc es, the applicable guideline rang e, the need t o avoid unwar rante d sentenc e disparities, and the ne ed to provide r estitution t o victims. I d. § 3553(a) (1), ( 3)-( 7). 2 Case: 11-15371 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 2 of 5“ cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t” in weig hi ng th e se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Go nz al ez, 5 50 F.3 d a t 1 32 4 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)
. Here, t he di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y de te rm in edth atCas ta no n- Ch adne s’s p rio r
co nv ic ti on in a Geo rg iaco urt fo r st atut ory rap e co ns ti tu te d acri m e o f vi ol en ce. A de fen da ntis subjec t t o a16 -p oi ntin crea se inhi s o ffen se lev el if h e p rev io us ly has be ende po rte d a fte r be in g c on vi ct edof a“ cri m e o f vi ol en ce.” U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2(b )(1 )(A)(i i) ( 20 11 ). “ St atut ory rap e” i s l is te d a s a “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” u nd er
se ct io n 2 L1.2 . Id. § 2L1 .2 cmt. n .1(B )(i ii ). Cas tano n- Ch adne s ar gu es th athi s pr io r co nv ic ti on forst atut ory rap e sh ou ldno t b e co ns id ereda “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” be cau se itdi d n otin vo lv e th e k in d o f ph y si cal for ce re qu ire d t o qua li fy as acri m e of vi ol en ce. St il l, “ [i]t i s wel l s et tl edth ata fel on y co nv ic ti on for

anenum erat ed of fen se qu al ifi es as a‘ cri m e o f vi ol en ce’ un de r § 2 L1.2 , whet he r or no t t he us e o f ph y si cal for ce i s an ele m en t o f th e cri m e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Pal om in o Gar ci a, 60 6 F.3 d 1 31 7, 1 32 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) ; s ee al so U.S.S.G. App . C, am en d. 7 22 (Enu m erat edoff

en se s “ are a lways cl as si fie d a s ‘cri m es of v io le nc e,’ regar dl es s o f whe th er t he pri oroff

en se expr es sl y

ha s as anele m en t t he us e, at te m pt edus e, or th reat en edus e o f ph y si cal for ce ag ai ns t t he pe rs on of a no th er.”)
. 2

Castanon-Chadne s’s argument -- that the district court err ed by applying a 16-leve l enhanc ement 2 to h is offe nse level and a 2 point incre ase to his criminal history score based on his single prior statutory rape convictio n -- i s wi t h out merit. We have repe atedly reje cted this kind of “double 3 Case: 11-15371 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 3 of 5Cas ta no n- Ch adne s al so arg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e was un reas on ab le be cau se

itwas g reat er t ha n n eces sa ry to ach ie ve th e se nt en ci ng go al s o f se ct io n 3 55 3( a), th ereb y vi ol at in g t he so -cal le d “ pa rs im on y pri nc ip le .” W e d is ag ree. In th e li gh t o f Cas tano n- Ch adne s’s p rio r co nv ic ti on forst atut ory rap e an d h is subs eque ntil le ga l
reen try int o t he Uni te d S ta te s af te r a p rio r de po rta ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt co ul d
reas on ab ly det erm in e th atno th in g l es s t ha n 4 6 m on th s wo ul d s uf fic e to de te r hi m fro m co m m it ti ng futur e cri m es an d t ha t a wi th in -g ui de li ne sen te nc e was ne ces sa ry to refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de jus t pu ni sh m en t, an d p ro te ctth e p ub li c. See 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 2) (A)-(C ). Not ab ly, th e “ weig htto be acco rd edan y gi ve n [s ect io n] 35 53 (a) fa ct oris a m at te r
co m m it te d t o t he so un d d is cret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt.” Un it edSta te s v . Cla y , 48 3 F.3 d 7 39 , 74 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (qu ot at io n o m it te d)
. Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt’s s en te nc e o f 46 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t fe ll at th e lo w-en d o f th e g ui de li ne ran ge of 4 6 t o 5 7 m on th s; an d we o rd in ari ly exp ect
su ch a se nt en ce t o b e rea so nabl e. See Go nz al ez, 5 50 F.3dat 1 32 4. In ad di ti on , th e 4 6- m on th sen te nc e was well be lo w th e 2 0- y ear s ta tu to ry m ax im um for

counting ” argument. See e.g ., United States v. Wy ckoff , 918 F.2d 925, 927-28 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 0 ) (noting that, the Sentencing Commi ssion intended the results that flow from the implementation of their guidelines, and rec og nized that the offe nse level and the criminal history cate g ory repr esent two distinct ideas, eac h of which a re to be evaluated and c alculate d separ ately ). 4 Case: 11-15371 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 4 of 5Cas tano n- Ch adne s’s o ffen se . See Un it edSta te s v . W in in ge ar, 4 22 F.3d12 41 ,

12 46 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (co m pa rin g, as on e in di cat io n o f rea so nabl en es s, t he actua l pr is on term

im po se d a ga in stth e st atut ory m ax im um ). Fi na ll y , Cas ta no n- Ch adne s co nt en ds th atth is Co urt h as affi rm eddo wnwar d
va ria nc es in othe r cas es de al in g wi th les s co m pe ll in g d efen dant s ch arg edwit h
m or e se rio us cri m es . Whi le th atm ay be so , su ch cas es do no t i m pl y th ata do wnwar d v ari an ce was requi redin th is pa rti cu la r cas e, as th e d is tri ctco urt h ad br oa d d is cret io n t o i m

po se anin di vi du al iz edsen te nc e th atlay with in “ 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.” Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3dat 13 24 ; Un it edSta te s v . Sha w, 56 0 F .3d12 30 , 12 41 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (s ta ti ng th at th is Co urt’s af

firm an ce o f le ss er v ari an ces in othe r cas es di d n otwarran t a r ev ers al of a gr eat er v ari an ce i n t he in st an t ca se ). Insu m , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d et erm in in g t ha t t he
se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s warran te d awit hi n- gu id el in e se nt en ce o f 46 m on th s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 )-(2 ); C la y , 48 3 F .3dat 7 43
. AFFIR MED.

5 Case: 11-15371 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 5 of 5