FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 7, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 11 15 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :9 7- cr-1 40 03 -KMM -2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us FIDENCIO GONZALES, a.k .a. Ch it a, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 7, 2 01 0) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Fi de nc io Gon zal es ap pe al s t he rev oc at io n o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e an d h is60 -m on th sen te nc e fo r vi ol at in g t he term s o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e. Afte r a

th or ou gh rev ie w of the pa rti es ’ br ie fs an d t he reco rd , we affi rm . I. Gon zal es fir stch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s re vo cat io n o f hi s s up erv is ed rel eas e. “ W e g en eral ly revi ew a d is tri ctco urt's rev oc at io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Velas qu ez Vel as qu ez, 5 24 F.3d12 48 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Sup erv is edrel eas e m ay be rev ok edif t he di st ric t co urt fin ds , by a p rep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce, tha t the de fen da ntvi ol at eda co nd it io n of th e supe rv is edrel eas e. 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( e)(3 ). Gon zal es arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinfin di ng th athe in te nd edto di st rib ut e th e ei gh t g ram s o f co cai ne inhi s p os se ss io n. In te ntto di st rib ut e m ay be in ferr edfro m

cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Poo le , 87 8 F .2d13 89 , 13 92 (11 thCir . 19 89 ) (p er cu ria m) (“ In te ntto di st rib ut e can be pro ve n c irc um st an ti al ly from , am on g o th er th in gs , th e qua nt it y

of c oc ai ne an d t he ex is te nc e o f im pl em en ts su chas s cal es co m m on ly use d i n c on ne ct io n wi th th e d is tri bu ti on of c oc ai ne .”). The r eco rd sh ows th atth e co cai ne inGon zal es ’s po ss es si on was p ack ag edinfif te enpl as ti c ba gg ie s. Th e two ex pe rie nc edarre st in g o ffi cers tes ti fie d t ha t thi s was an in di cat io n tha t the co cai ne was i nt en de d fo r sa le or d is tri bu ti on . This ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Go nz al es in te nd edto 2di st rib ut e th e co cai ne . W e th eref or e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re vo ki ng Gon zal es ’s supe rv is edrel eas e. II. Gon zal es ne xtarg ue s tha t h is 60 -m on th sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . W e rev ie w th e subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e fo r ab us e

1 of di sc ret io n i n l ig htof the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 , 59 7 (2 00 7) . “ [T]he p arty who ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le inth e li gh t o f bo th th [e] reco rdan d t he fact or s i n [1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)].” Uni te d S ta te s v. Tal le y , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ [O]rdi na ril y we wou ldex pe cta se nt en ce wi th in th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e to be reas on ab le .” Id . Gon zal es arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt fa il edto ad equa te ly andpro pe rly

In his statement of the issues, Gonzales c halleng es both the substantive and pr ocedur al 1 rea sonablene ss of his sentence . In his argument, howeve r, Gonzales cha lleng es only the substantive rea sonablene ss of his sentence . We conclude that Gonzales has waive d the issue of proce dural re asonable ness. See United States v. Gupta, 463 F.3d 1182, 1195 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (“We may

decline to a ddress a

n argument wher e a pa

rty fails to provide a

rguments on the merits of an issue in its initial or reply brief. Without such argument the issue is deeme d waived.” ). Even if Gonzales ha d not waived the issue, w e would re view only for plain e rror

beca use Gonzales’s objec tion at sentencingchalleng ed only the substantive re asonable ness of his 60- month sentence . See United States v. Masse y , 443 F.3d 814, 818 ( 11th Cir. 2006). For this Court to corre ct plain er

ror a t sentencing , a def

endant must establish that there is a rea sonable probability

that, but for the e rror , he would have rec eived a lesser se ntence . United States v. Arias- I zquierdo, 449 F.3d 1168, 1190 (11th Cir. 2006). A s Gonzales has not shown that he rec eived a

longe r sentenc e bec ause of a proc edura l error , he could not pre vail under pla in error revie w. 3co ns id er h is hi st ory an d c haract eri st ic s an d t he na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he of fen se , as re qu ire d b y

§ 3 55 3( a)(1 ), an d i m

po se d asen te nc e th atwas g reat er tha n ne ces sa ry to co m pl y with the purp os es of s en te nc in g s etforth in§ 3 55 3( a)(2 ). Gon zal es ’s adv is ory

gu id el in e ran ge was 5 1 t o 6 0 m on th s. His ori gi na l co nv ic ti on was for co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne an d c oc ai ne ba se in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 . Giv enth atGon zal es ’s ori gi na l co nv ic ti on was fo r co nduc t s im il ar t o t he vi ol at io n t ha t re su lt edinth e rev oc at io n o f hi s s up erv is ed rel eas e, we can no t s ay

th athi s wi th in -g ui de li ne sen te nc e o f 60 m on th s i s un reas on ab le . See § 35 53 (a)( 2) (requi rin g c ou rts to co ns id er the ne edforth e se nt en ce “ to affo rdad equa te de te rren ce t o c riminal co nduc t,” a nd“ to pro te ctth e publ ic fro m

furth er cr im es of t he de fen dant ”). Fo r th es e rea so ns , bo th th e rev oc at io n o f Gon zal es ’s supe rv is edrel eas e an d hi s 6 0- m on th sen te nc e are AFFIRM ED.

4