FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 7 , 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- 13935 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 3 0 7 - CR - 2 - KO B- J EO 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 lla n t, v ersu s A N G E L A C H E E K M O N T G O M E R Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 7, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T h e g o v ern m en tap p eal s th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s sen t en ce o f ei g h tm o n th s’Montgomery argues that wedo not have jurisdiction over this appeal be causethe 1 g overnment did not subm it evidencethat it had obtained proper approval to prosecute this appeal pursua nt to 1 8 U .S. C. § 37 42 (b ). This a rgument i s w ith out merit. S e eUnite d St ate s v . Abb e ll, 271 F.3d 1286, 1290 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 2001) (noting that the requirement that the g overnment obtain approval under § 3742(b)to prosecutean appe al is not jurisdictional). 2 i m pr i s onm e nti m pos e d on A nge l a C he e k M ont gom e ry , f ol l ow i ng he rc onvi c t i on f orba nk f r a ud i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 1344( 1) . T he gove rnm e nta r gue s tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t g iv e s u f f ic ie n t r e a s o n s f

o rth e s e n te n c e it im p o s e d in c om pl i a nc e w i th 18 U . S . C . § 3553( c ) ( 2) s uc h tha tw e c a nnote nga ge i n m e a ni ngf ul ap p e lla te r e v ie w a n d th a t M o n tg o m e ry ’s s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le in lig h t o f b o th the re cord and the se nt enci ng fa ct ors c on t ai ned i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . 1 I. U n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) , a d is tr ic t c o u r t m u s t s ta te s u f f ic ie n tly s p e c if

ic r e a s o n s f o rits d e p a r tu r e f

r o m th e ap p lic ab le g u id e lin e s r a n g e s o th a t a n ap p e lla te c our tc a n e nga ge i n m e a ni ngf ul r e vi e w . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S ua r e z , 939 F . 2d 929, 933 ( 11th C i r . 1991) . “ W he n e va l ua t i ng a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e a s ons f ori m pos i ng a pa r t i c ul a rs e nt e nc e , [ w e ] m a y c ons i de rthe e nt i r e s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng a nd ne e d not r e l y upon the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s um m a ry s t a t e m e ntm a de a tthe c l os i ng of the s e n te n c in g h e a r in g .” I d . a t 9 3 4 . W e h a v e lo n g m a n d a te d s u f f ic ie n t f in d in g s to perm i tm ea ni ng ful appel l at e r evi ew and h ave vaca t ed w i th d i re ct i on s w hen that w a s notthe c a s e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ut l e r , 41 F . 3d 1435, 1437 ( 11th C i r . 1995)3

(vac at i ng se nt ence s a nd re m andi ng for f urther procee di ng s bec ause the di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t m a k e s u f

f ic ie n t f a c tu a l f in d in g s to p e r m it m e a n in g f u l ap p e lla te r e v ie w ) . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 (200 5), m ade the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes a dv i soryand subj ec t ed se nt ence s t o an unr e a s onabl e ne s s r e vi e w on appe a l . B ooke r , 125 S . C t . a t764- 66. I n s e nt e nc i ng, di s tr i c tc our t s m us ts t i l l c ons ul tthe gui de l i ne s a nd c orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e the gui de l i ne s r a nge . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 1178 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t i ng B ooke r ) . A f

t e rdoi ng thi s , the di s tr i c tc our tm us tc ons i de rthe s e nt e nc i ng fa ct ors i n § 35 53 (a ) t o d et erm i ne a r ea sonabl e s ent ence , w hi ch m aybe m ore s ever e orm or e l e ni e nttha n tha tpr ovi de d f ori n the gui de l i ne s r a nge . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 788 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3d a t1179. N othi ng i n B ooke ra l t e r e d the § 3553( c ) ( 2) r e qui r e m e nttha ta di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e r e a s ons f or its d e p a r tu r e f

r o m th e ap p lic ab le g u id e lin e s r a n g e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t is o b lig a te d to gi ve r e a s ons f

ori t s de pa r tur e f

r om the gui de l i ne s , butdoe s notha ve t o gi ve s p e c if ic r e a s o n s f

o re a c h § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to rit c o n s id e r e d in a rr iv in g a t a r e a s o n ab le s e nt e nc e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ott , 426 F . 3d 1324, 1329 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( not i ng tha ta di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s t a t e m e nttha ti tc ons i de r e d the de f e nda nt ’ s a r gum e nt s a nd the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors a l on e i s s uffi ci enti n a po st -B oo ker s ent ence ) ( se nt ence i m po se d4

w ith in g u id e lin e r a n g e ) . B e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s p e c if ic a lly id e n tif

ie d th e p r o c e d u r e it f

o llo w e d to de t e r m i ne M ont gom e ry ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd ga ve r e a s ons f orthe s e nt e nc e i ti m pos e d, w e c a n e n g a g e in m e a n in g f u l ap p e lla te r e v ie w . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o rr e c tly ca l cul at ed the gu i del i nes r ange i n com pl i ance w i th B oo ker, t oo k the ra ng e und er a d v is e m e n t, r e

je c te d it, a n d in s te a d im p o s e d a d is c r e tio n a ry s e n te n c e , w h ic h it f ound t o be r e a s onabl e ba s e d on s e ve r a l s pe c i f i c f a c t or s i n § 3553( a ) . I n a ddi t i on t o the s t a t e m e ntm a de by the di s tr i c tc our t , a n e xa m i na t i on of the s e nt e nc i ng tr a n s c r ip t a n d th e P S I a llo w s u s to r e v ie w M o n tg o m e ry ’s s e n te n c e to d e te r m in e if i ti s unrea sonabl e i n l i gh tof the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. T he di stri ctcourtm ade c l ea r tha ti tw a s goi ng be l ow the gui de l i ne r a nge ba s e d on i t s pos t - B ooke rdi s c r e t i on a nd c ons i de r a t i on of

s e ve r a l f a c t or s i n § 3553( a ) . T hus , the di s tr i c tc our tga ve s u f f ic ie n t ju s tif

ic a tio n s f o rits s e n te n c e in c o m p lia n c e w ith § 3 5 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) a n d S c o tt, a n d we c a n e n g a g e i n m e a n i n g f u l ap p e l l a t e r e v i e w.

II. A ft erthe di stri ctcourthas a cc urat el y c al cul at ed the gu i del i ne ra ng e, i t“ m ay i m p o se a m o re sev ere o r m o re l en i en tsen t en ce” th atw e rev i ew fo r reaso n ab l en ess. C r a w f o r d , 4 0 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 8 - 7 9 . S u c h r e v ie w is d e f e r e n tia l, r e q u ir in g u s to

“ e va l ua t e w he the rthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc our tf a i l s t o a c hi e ve the5

p u rp o ses o f sen t en ci n g . ” T al l ey, 4 3 1 F . 3 d at7 8 8 . M o reo v er, th e reaso n ab l en ess s t a nda r d i s appl i e d t o the ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e , note a c h i ndi vi dua l de c i s i on m a de dur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d 1241, 1245 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . I n r e vi e w i ng a s e nt e nc e f orr e a s onabl e ne s s , w e s houl d be gui de d by the fa ct ors i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . W i ni ng ea r, 42 2 F . 3d at12 46 . R el evantfa ct ors i nc l ude : ( 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 c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of

the de f e nda nt ; ( 2) the ne e d f

orthe s e nt e nc e t o r e f

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

the of f e ns e , pr om ot e r e s pe c tf

orthe l a w , pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm e ntf or the of f e ns e , a f f or d a de qua t e de t e rr e nc e t o c r i m i na l c onduc t , pr ot e c tthe publ i c f r om other c ri m es by the defendant , and the need t o p rovi de defendantw i th n ee ded me d i c a l c a r e ; ( 3 ) th e a v a i l ab l e s e n t e n c e s ; a n d ( 4 ) th e g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e . 1 8 U . S. C. § 3553( a ) ( 1) - ( 4) . “ [ T ] he pa r ty w ho c ha l l e nge s the s e nt e nc e be a r s the bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng tha tthe s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e i n the l i ghtof both [ the ] r e c or d a nd th e f a c to r s in § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) .” T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 8 . D i stri ctcourt s do n otneed t o est abl i sh the re as on abl enes s of the se nt ence s the y i m pos e by e xpl i c i t l y c ons i de r i ng e ve ry f a c t orf r om § 3553( a ) on the r e c or d; som e i nd i ca t i on i n the re cord thatthe courtadequat el y a nd prop er l y c on si dere d appr opr i a t e f

a c t or s i n c onj unc t i on w i th the s e nt e nc e w i l l be s uf f i c i e nt . S c ott , 4266

F .3 d a t 1 3 2 9 ( im p o s in g s e n te n c e a t lo w e n d o f g u id e lin e s r a n g e ) . H er e, the di stri ctcourti nd i ca t ed thati tconsi dere d sever al spec i fi c § 35 53 (a ) f a c t or s i n i m pos i ng M ont gom e ry ’ s s e nt e nc e , i nc l udi ng the s e r i ous ne s s of the o ffen se (w h i ch th e co u rtth o u g h tw as o v erst at ed b y th e g u i d el i n es ran g e), j u st p u n i sh m en t , ad eq u at e d et erren ce, th e h i st o ry an d ch aract eri st i cs o f M o n t g o m ery, the need t o p rovi de re st i tut i on , and the need t o p rovi de the defendantw i th n ee ded m e d ic a l c a r e f

o rh e rm e n ta l illn e s s . B a s e d on the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , M ont gom e ry ’ s s e nt e nc e i s r e a s onabl e . F or i nst ance , thi s c ri m e w as M on t go m ery’ s f i rs tand o nl y off

ense . R es t i tut i on w as an i m po rt antcom po nenti n p rovi di ng pu ni shm entfor the offens e, and the di stri ct c our tr e c ogni z e d thi s i n or de r i ng M ont gom e ry t o pa y a l a r ge a m ountof r e s t i tut i on a n d s e n te n c in g h e rto th e m a x im u m f iv e y e a r s o f

s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e in o r d e rto m ake r es t i tut i on paym ent s. B as ed on her l ac k o f acr i m i nal hi st ory, M on t go m ery i s unl i ke l y t o c om m i tf

ur the rc r i m e s i n the f

utur e s uc h tha ts he w oul d ne e d a l engthy peri od of i ncar ce ra t i on t o p rot ec tthe pu bl i c. T he re cord al so i nd i ca t es that M o n tg o m e ry h a d a h is to ry o f m e n ta l illn e s s , w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to o k in to ac coun ti n fas hi on i ng i t s s ent ence . F i nal l y, the ei gh t -m on th sent ence i m po se d w as avai l abl e a ft erB oo ker because the di stri ctcourtw as fr ee t o i m po se a s ent ence b el o w th e ap p l i cab l e g u i d el i n e ran g e aft er i th ad b een cal cu l at ed co rrect l y.7

B as ed on the foregoi ng , the se nt ence i s r ea sonabl e a nd w e a ff i rm the di stri ct c o u r t. AF F I RME D.