FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT FEB 2, 2007 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. 06- 11829 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 3 0 4 - C R - T - 1 7 - E AJ 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 lle e , v ersu s W A L V I N C O O P E R , a .k .a . K u rtis S c o tt B e n

ja m in , a .k .a . I v a n B r e a ry , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 2, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an dB L A C K , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

W a lv in C o o p e rap p e a ls h is 5 7 - m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e df o llo w in g h is g u ilty pl eafor i l l egal re entryi nt o the U ni t ed S t at es af t erdepo rt at i on as an aggravat ed fe l on , i n v i ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) and (b)(2). O n app ea l , C oo per argues that hi s s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e be c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourtf a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s , i n l i ghtof

U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), other than the chara ct er i st i cs of hi s c ri m i nal h is to ry . C o o p e rm a in ta in s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s f a ilu r e to a rtic u la te its consi dera t i on of any of the other § 35 53 (a ) f ac t ors pre se nt ed by C oo per before im p o s in g aG u id e lin e s s e n te n c e d idn o t s a tis f yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s ta tu to ryd u tyto c o n s id e rth e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . W e r e vi e w the f

i na l s e nt e nc e i m pos e d bythe di s tr i c tc ourtf or r e a s o n ab le n e s s . U n ite d S ta te s v . W in in g e a r , 4 2 2 F .3 d1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s i m p o si t i o n o f a sen t en ce an dth i s C o u rt ’ s reaso n ab l en ess i n q u i ry are g u i d ed b y th e fact o rs o u t l i n edi n § 3 5 5 3 (a). U n i t ed S t at es v . T al l ey, 4 3 1 F . 3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 6 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ); W i n i n g ear, 4 2 2 F . 3 dat1 2 4 6 . “ [T ] h ere i s a r a nge of r e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e s f

r om w hi c h the di s tr i c tc ourtm a yc hoos e . . . . ” I d. a t 7 8 8 . W h ile as e n te n c e w ith in th e a d v is o ryG u id e lin e s r a n g e is n o t, p e rs e , a re as on abl e s ent ence , w e ordi nari l y e xp ec tsuch a s ent ence t o b e r ea sonabl e. Id. at 787- 88. T he 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 l i ghtof the3

re cord and the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors l i es w i th the party c hal l engi ng the se nt ence . Id. at 78 8. T he di stri ctcourti s notob l i gat ed t o speci fi ca l l y a dd re ss and anal yz e e very § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to ro n th e r e c o r d . U n ite dS ta te s v . S c o tt, 4 2 6 F .3 d1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 05 ). R ather, the di stri ctcourt ’ s s t at em entthati thas c on si dere d tho se fa ct ors i s s uffi ci enti n p ost -B oo ker s ent enci ng . Id. at13 30 . M oreover, w here the di stri ct c o u rt h a s c o n s id e r e d p e rm is s ib le f a c to r s , w e w ill n o t s u b s titu te o u rju d g m e n t in w e i ghi ng the r e l e va ntf

a c t or s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d 1353, 1363 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd the s e nt e nc i ng tr a ns c r i pt , a nd upon c o n s id e r a tio n o f

th e b r ie f s o f th e p a rtie s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e 5 7 - m o n th s e n te n c e is r e a s o n ab le . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a c c u r a te lyc a lc u la te dth e G u id e lin e s r a n g e o f 5 7 to 7 1 m o n th s a n d im p o s e d as e n te n c e a t th e lo w e n do f th a t r a n g e . I n r e a c h in g its d e c is io n , th e c o u rt h e a r d C o o p e r ’s a r g u m e n ts a t s e n te n c in g a n de x p r e s s ly consi dere d the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, i ncl ud i ng the ci rc um st ance s of the offens e, C oo per’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory, hi s l ac k o f r es pectfor the U ni t ed S t at es , and the dang er C oope rpos e d t o the c om m uni ty . T he c ourta l s o t ook i nt o a c c ountC oope r ’ s a ge and m ot i vat i on for i l l egal l y r ee nt er i ng the U ni t ed S t at es , fa ct ors thatC oo per cont ends ca l l for abel ow -G ui del i nes s ent ence , bu tconcl ud ed thatthe se nt ence i m p o sed b ett er serv ed th e p u rp o ses o f sen t en ci n g setfo rth i n § 3 5 5 3 (a). B ecau se4

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f

u lf ille d its s ta tu to ryd u tyto c o n s id e rth e s e f a c to r s , w e a f

f irm . AF F I RME D.