FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT April 29, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - N o. 07- 1272 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 07-20015 -CR- KMM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOHN MURRAY JOHNSON, JR., D ef en dant- Appe llant.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - (A pr il 29, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T and B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant- Appe llant J ohn Mur ray Joh nson , Jr . appe al s hi s 23 5- m onth se nte nc e im

pose d a ft er

he ple d gu ilty

to poss es sio n of

af ir earm and am m uni tio n2

by ac onvi ct ed

f el on, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). N o r ev er sib le e rr or ha s b een sh own ; we af

fir m . O n a ppe al , Joh nsonarg ue s th at the r ec or d di d no t su

ppor t a se nte nc e at

the hig h e nd o f the G uid el ine s r an ge and tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a de qua te ly co ns id er h is pe rs on al hi st ory an d c ha ract eri st ic s i n i m po si ng sen te nc e. Be ca use Joh nsonw as se nte nc ed a ft er the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in U nit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 125 S . Ct . 738 ( 2005 ), w e re vie whis se nte nc e fo r reasonableness in the ligh t of the section 355 3(a) f actors. See United State s v. Win in ge ar, 4 22 F.3d 12 41 , 12 44 -4 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Und er s ect io n 3 55 3( a), a dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r, a m ong oth er thi ngs, the na tur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse , the se ri ousn es s of

the of fe nse , the his tor

y and c hara ct er ist ic s of

the de fe ndant, the ne ed

f or a de qua te de te rr en ce , pr ote ct ionof the pub lic , and j ust puni shm en t, pol ic y

state m en ts o f the S en te nc ing Co m m iss ion , pr ovi sio n f

or the m ed ic al and e duc at ion al ne ed s of the de fe ndant, and the ne ed to av oid unw ar rante d se nte nc ing dis pari tie s. S ee 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) (1 )- (7 ). “ Re vie wf or reasonableness is deferential”; and “ the party who challenges the sentence bear s the burden of establish ing th at the sentence is unreasonable in the ligh t of [the] re co rd and the f ac tor s inse ct ion355 3( a) . ” U nit ed S ta te s v. T al le y , 431 F . 3d 7 84, 78 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) .3

W e conclude that John son’s sentence w as rea sonable. T he district court co rr ec tly c al cu la te d Jo hnso n’ s G uid el ine s im pr iso nm en t r an ge a s 18 8 to 235 m on th s b as edon hi s cl as si fic at io n a s an arm edcare er cr im in al un de r U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b)(3)( A) ; and the district court sentenced Joh nson to the high point of that range . I d. ( not ing that “ or din ar ily w e w oul d e xpe ct

ase nte nc e w ith in the Guidelines range to be rea sonable”). T he Suprem e Court re cently has explained that “ a court of appeals m ay apply a presum ption of rea sonablen ess to a district court sentence that ref

lects a proper a

pplication of the Sentencing Guidelines.” Ri ta v. Un it edSta te s, 1 27 S.Ct . 24 56 , 24 62 (20 07 ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt no te d th at it se nte nc ed

Joh nsonto the hig h e nd o f his advis or y G uid el ine s r an ge so tha t the se nte nc e w oul d r ef le ct the se ri ousn es s of

the crim e, prom ote respect f

or the law , and provi de j ust pu nishm ent. T he district co urt a lso state d th at

it ha d c onsi de re d th e state m en ts o f al l the part ie s and the presentence investigation report, which included both the advisory Guidelines range and the se ct ion355 3( a) f ac tor s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt w as not r equir ed to state on th e rec or d t ha t i t ex pl ic it ly con si de redeach of t he sec ti on 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. U nit ed S ta te s v. Bo hannon , 476 F . 3d 1 246, 124 8 ( 11th C ir . ), c er t. de nie d, 127 S.Ct. 2953 (2007) (explaining that “ an acknowledgm ent by the district court that it has consi dered the defe ndant’s ar gum ents and the [section] 3553 (a) factorsTh e g ov ernm ent asse rt s th at, b e c a us e John so n d id n ot o bje c t to the se nte nc e a s unr e a so na ble * afte r it was imposed, we should re view Johnson’s present cha lleng e only for plain e rror . We need no t de c ide thi s is su e be c a us e , e ve n und e r a

re a so na ble ne ss s tand ard , Johns on ’s a pp e a l f a ils . 4 w ill suf fi ce . ”) . A nd the w ei ght

giv ento a se ct ion355 3( a) f ac tor is w ith in the soun d di sc re tio n of

the dis tr ic t c ourt; “ [w ] e w ill not sub sti tut e our

j udgm en t i n w ei ghi ng the r el ev an t f

ac tor s. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. W ill iam s, 456 F . 3d 1 353, 136 3 (1 1thCi r. 200 6) , c er

t. dis m iss ed , 127 S . Ct . 304 0 ( 2007 ), abr oga te d inpart on differe nt groun ds byKim brough v. U nited States, 128 S. Ct. 588 (200 7). Ba se d onthe f

ac tor s ou tli ne d inse ct ion355 3( a) and o ur r ev ie wof

the re co rd , w e co nc lud e that Jo hnso n ha s no t c ar ri ed his bur de n of

sho w ing that hi s sentence w as unreasonable. * AFFIR MED.