FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J ULY 7, 2 009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 10 61 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 9 8- 00 36 8- CR-DM M
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOSE N. BENITEZ, 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 So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J ul y 7, 2 00 9) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Jo se Ben it ez ap pe al s h is sen te nc e, im po se d fo ll owi ng adm it te d v io la ti on s o f th e te rm s o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e, arg ui ng th atth e se nt en ce was un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto co ns id er the sen te nc in g fa ct or s s etfor th at 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) an d d ep art edab ov e th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ran ge wit ho ut
su ffi ci en tl y

art ic ul at in g t he ba si s fo r th e d ep artur e. Becaus e th e d is tri ctco urt 1
m ad e cl ear tha t i t h adco ns id eredth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d re ferr edto cert ai n o f th e ap pr op ria te fact or s, we af firm . On J an ua ry

20 , 20 09 , th e d is tri ctco urt h el d afin al rev oc at io n h eari ng on Ben it ez’s v io la ti on of s up erv is edrel eas e. Ben it ez ad m it te d c omm it ti ng all ten of th e v io la ti on s al le ge d i n t he pe ti ti on fil edby the U.S. Prob at io n Off ic e. The c ou rt fo un d tha t Be ni te z h advi ol at edth e te rm s an d c on di ti on s o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e
an d re vo ke d t he pe rio d o f rel eas e. Alt ho ug h t he pa rti es ag reedth atth e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ran ge was be twee n fo urto ten m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d jo in tl y

reco m m en de d atenm on th
se nt en ce, t he pro ba ti on off ic er re co m

m en de d atwen ty-fou r m on th sen te nc e. The
co urt n ot edth atth e v io la ti on s co ns is te d o f “ m ul itpl e DUI arre st s, wh ic h i s an Be nitez was convicted of importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and on 1 October 23, 1998 was sente nced to 63 months’ imprisonment and 4 year s of supervise d rele ase. Be nitez’s term of supervise d rele ase be g an on De cembe r 5, 2002. In response to a petition filed by the U.S. probation off

ice, B enitez was ar

rested f or alleg ed violations of the ter ms of his supervised r elea se. B enitez admitted the alleg ations. This appea l involves the district court’s sentenc e for

the admitted violations of the conditions for B enitez’s supervised r elea se. 2acci de ntwait in g t o h ap pe n” an d t ha t Be ni te z h adde m on strat ed“ a fai r am ou nt[of ] di sr eg ardforth e la w.” The co urt co nc lu de d t ha t a 2 4- m on th sen te nc e was ap pr op ria te , st at in g:

2 I ha ve de te rm in edth atanup wardva ria nc e fro m th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge in th is cas e is warran te d. Th e d efen da ntab sc on de d th e juri sd ic ti on , has co nt in ue d t o h av e v io la ti on s i nc lu di ng DUI . . . I’m co nc ern edab ou t p ro te ct io n o f th e p ub li c an d abo utth e de fen da nt ’s di sr eg ardof the law. An d I f in d the ap pl ic ab le advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge is in su ffi ci en t t o d et er fu tu re cr im in al co nduc t. The co urt al so st at edth atit“ care fu ll y co ns id eredth e st at em en ts of a ll pa rti es an d th e in fo rm at io n c on ta in edin th e v io la ti onrep ort.” Upo n fi nd in g t ha t a d efen da ntvi ol at eda co nd it io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e, a di st ric t co urt m ay

rev ok e th e te rm

of s up erv is edrel eas e an d i m po se im pr is on m en t aft er co ns id eri ng cert ai n o f th e § 35 53 (a) s en te nc in g fa ct or s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e). The § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s re le va ntto sen te nc in g fo r vi ol at io ns of t he term s o f
supe rv is edrel eas e in cl ud e th e n eedth e affo rdad equa te de te rren ce t o c riminal
co nduc t an d p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m fur th er cr im es of t he de fen da nt . Id. W e rev ie w a se nt en ce i m po se d upo n re vo cat io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e fo r reas on ab le ne ss . Uni te d S ta te s v . Sweet in g, 4 37 F.3d11 05 , 11 06 -0 7 (1 1t h C ir.
The district cour

t had the authority

to vary the sentenc e above the guidelines, bec ause 2 Chapter 7 of

the SentencingGuidelines, which r elate to the imposition of a prison sente nce f or violating the te rms of super vised rele ase, a

re “ mere ly

advisory .” United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319, 1320 ( 11th Cir. 2000). 320 06 ). Reas on ab le ne ss “ m erel y ask s wh ethe r th e tr ia l co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Pug h, 5 15 F.3d11 79 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ti ng Rit a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8 (2 00 7) ). The re vi ew fo r rea so nabl en es s, i nv ol ve s t wo st ep s. Id . at 1 19 0. Fi rs t, we m us t “ ‘ens ur e th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d n o si gn ifi can t p ro cedur al erro r, su ch as 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 the Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er t he § 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 en sen te nc e — i nc lu di ng anexpl an at io n fo r an y de vi at io n fr om

th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e.’” Id. (quo ti ng Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 (20 07 )). If t he re was no pro cedur al erro r, we co ns id er t he “ subs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of t he sen te nc e im po se d, u nd er an ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard ,” ba se d o n t he “ to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces .” Id
. Ben it ez’s o nl y

arg um en t o n app eal is th athi s s en te nc e was pro cedur al ly
un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto co ns id er t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. The di st ric t co urt, h owe ve r, “ ne edno t co nduc t an acco un ti ng of e ve ry § 3 55 3( a) fact or an d e xp ou ndonho w each fact orpl ay eda ro le inth e se nt en ci ng de ci si on .” See Un it edSta te s v . Orti z-Del ga do , 45 1 F .3d75 2, 7 58 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Rob le s, 4 08 F.3d13 24 , 13 28 (11 th Cir . 20 05 )). Itis su ffi ci en t i f

4th e d is tri ctco urt co ns id ers th e subs ta nc e o f th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. See Uni te d

St at es v. Will ia m s, 4 53 F.3d13 50 , 13 55 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). W e fi ndno pro cedur al un reas on ab le ne ss in th e im po si ti on of B en it ez’s
se nt en ce. The di st ric t co urt s ta te d t ha t i t fe lta se nt en ce o ut si de th e g ui de li ne s
ran ge was warran te d b ecau se of t he ne edto affo rdad equa te de te rren ce an d t o pr ot ectth e p ub li c. Thes e are rel ev an t an d app ro pr ia te § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s t o co ns id er fo r vi ol at io ns of c on di ti on s o f supe rv is edrel eas e. 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( e). Add it io na ll y , th e d is tri ctco urt n ot edth e rep eat edna tu re o f Ben it ez’s DUI vi ol at io ns an d fo un d t ha t h e d em on st rat ed“ a fai r am ou nt[of ] di sr eg ardforth e la w.” Thi s co nt in ui ng di sr eg ardforth e law just ifi edth e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to
va ry ab ov e th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ran ge . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t im po se anun reas on ab le sen te nc e an d we AFFIRM Ben it ez’s twen ty fou r m on th
se nt en ce.

5