FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 27, 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- 16084 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 1 4 0 2 2 - CR - DLG 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 P O R F I R I O A G U I R R E - L O P E Z , a .k .a . P o r f

id io A g u ila r , 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 S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 27, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P or f i r i o A gui r r e - L ope z a ppe a l s hi s 88- m onth s e nt e nc e f ori l l e ga l r e e ntr y byOn Februar y 20, 2007, the Supreme Court he ard a rguments to consider the f ollowing 1 qu e sti on s: 1 ) W a s th edi s tri c tc o urt ' s c h o i c eo f w i th in - Gu i d e l i n e s s e nt e n c er e a s o n a b l e ? 2 ) In makingthat determinatio n, is i t c on sis tent w ithUnite d St ate s v . B oo ker, 54 3 U .S. 220, 125 S.Ct . 738, 160 L .Ed.2d 621 (2005), to accord a pre sumption of rea sonablene ss to within-Guidelines sentence s? 3) I f so, ca n that presumption justify a sentence imposed w ithout an expl icit analysis by the district court of the 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors and a ny other factors that might justi fy a lesser sentenc e? Se eRita v. Unite d St ate s, (U .S. No v. 03 , 2 00 6) (N o. 06 -5 75 4) (de fend ant a pp e a l of 33 -m onth sentenc e). 2 a p r e v io u s ly d e p o r te d a g g r a v a te d f e lo n , in v io la tio n o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) . S pe c i f i c a l l y , A gui r r e - L ope z a r gue s tha tthi s s e nt e nc e w a s unr e a s ona bl e be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our te r r one ous l y pr e s um e d tha tas e nt e nc e w i thi n the S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s w o u ld b e r e a s o n a b le a n d g a v e u n d u e w e ig h t to th e G u id e lin e s . A gu i rr e- L op ez al so ar gu es thatw e s ho ul d h ol d h i s c as e unt i l the S up re m e C ou rt has dec i ded R i t a v. U ni t ed S t at es , (N o. 06 -575 4). 1 A f t e rU 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 ( 2005) , the s e nt e nc i ng c our tm us tnotonl y c or r e c t l y c a l c ul a t e the gui de l i ne i m pri sonm entra ng e, bu tm ustal so tre atthatra ng e a s a dv i sory and i m po se a r e a s o n a b le s e n te n c e . U n ite d S ta te s v . T a lle y , 4 8 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . W e r evi ew a s ent ence for r ea sonabl enes s i n l i gh tof 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . U ni t ed S t at es v. M ar t i n, 45 5 F . 3d 12 27 , 12 37 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ). T hi s s t atut e provi des that the se nt enci ng courtshal l i m po se a s ent ence “ suff i ci ent , bu tno tgrea t erthan3

ne c e s s a r y ” t o c om pl y w i th the purpos e s of s e nt e nc i ng, na m e l y r e f l e c t i ng the seri o u sn ess o f th e o ffen se, p ro m o t i n g resp ectfo r th e l aw , p ro v i d i n g j u st puni s hm e ntf

orthe of f e ns e , de t e r r i ng c r i m i na l c onduc t , pr ot e c t i ng the publ i c f r om future c ri m i nal cond uctby the defendant , and p rovi di ng the defendantw i th n ee ded e duc a t i ona l orvoc a t i ona l tr a i ni ng orm e di c a l c a r e . 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ( 2) . T he s t a tut e a l s o i ns truc t s the s e nt e nc i ng c our tt o c ons i de rc e r t a i n f a c t or s , i nc l udi ng the h is to r y a n d c h a r a c te r is tic s o f th e d e f e n d a n t. 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) . W e d o n o t r e q u ir e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to d is c u s s o rto s ta te th a t it h a s e x p lic itly c o n s id e r e d e a c h p a r t o f

§ 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 6 . I n s te a d , a n e x p lic it a c k n o w le d g m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s c o n s id e r e d th e d e f e n d a n t’s a r g u m e n ts a nd the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s w i l l s uf

f i c e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ot t , 436 F . 3d 1324, 1329- 30 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T he bur de n of pr ovi ng tha ta s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s ona bl e r e s t s on th e s e n te n c e c h a lle n g e r . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 8 . H er e, no thi ng i n t he re cord dem on stra t es thatthe di stri ctcourtas sum ed that a s ent ence w i thi n t he gu i del i nes i m pri sonm entra ng e w ou l d b e r ea sonabl e. R ather, the di s tr i c tc our te xpl i c i t l y a c know l e dge d tha ti tha d the a uthor i ty t o i m pos e a ny re as on abl e s ent ence . A l so, the di stri ctcourtexpres sl y s t at ed thati thad con si dere d the ar gu m ent s of bot h p ar t i es and t he § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. T he di stri ctcourt ul t i m a t e l y w a s i nf

l ue nc e d by A gui r r e - L ope z ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t or y , w hi c h i s one of theAguirre- L opez’s reque st for oral argument is denied. 2 4 § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. S ee 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (1). A cc ordi ng l y, beca use the di stri ct courtdi d n otm ake a ny erroneou s a ss um pt i on and con si dere d every thi ng re qu i re d of i tbe f or e s e nt e nc i ng, the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d w a s r e a s ona bl e . S e e T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d at78 6; S cot t , 43 6 F . 3d 13 24 . T here fore , w e a ff i rm A gu i rr e- L op ez ’ s s ent ence . W e a l so no t e thatbeca use the di stri ctcourtdi d n otpres um e thata s ent ence w ith in th e g u id elin es im p riso n m en t ran g e w as re as o n ab le, th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c is io n in R ita w ill n o t a f f e c t th e o u tc o m e o f

th e in s ta n t ap p e a l. T h e r e f o r e , it is u n n e c e s s a r y to h o ld th e in s ta n t c a s e u n til R ita is d e c id e d . AF F I RME D. 2