FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L13, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 15 02 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 02 40 -RAL-EAJ- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MIGUEL ANGEL MORALES-VELAZQUEZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 13 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, HU LL andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Mi gu el Ang el Mo ral es -Vel azque z ap pe al s h is co nc urren t p ris on sen te nc es of 12 m on th s fo r be in g fo un d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s af te r ha vi ng be ende po rte d t oMex ic o, i n v io la ti onof 8 U.S.C. § § 13 26 (a), an d fo r un la wfu l en try int o t he

Uni te d S ta te s, i n v io la ti on of 8 U.S.C. § § 13 25 (a)( 1) an d 1 32 9. He ar gu es th athi s se nt en ces , whi ch co ns ti tu te d a n upwa rdva ria nc e fro m th e p res cri be d Gu id el in es se nt en ci ng ran ge , is pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt d ig res se d fro m th e le ga l s tand ardpre sc rib edby 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) wh enitst at edth atit was im po si ng a se nt en ce tha t was “ m or e th ansu ffi ci en t” to co m pl y with t he st atut ory pu rp os es of s en te nc in g, an d b ecau se th e co urt fa il edto ex pl ai n i ts reas on s fo r im

po si ng th e upwa rdva rianc e. He als o arg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc es are subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le be cau se th e co urt o nl y co ns id eredth e n eedfor de te rren ce t o t he ex cl us io n o f th e o th er § 35 53 (a) s en te nc in g fa ct or s, i .e., pu rp os es , andsen te nc es withi n t he Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng e—t wo t o e ig ht m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t—wou ldha ve be ensu ffi ci en t t o a ch ie ve § 3 55 3( a)’s pu rp os es . W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e, in cl ud in g wh enitis th e res ul t of a § 3 55 3( a) v ari an ce, u nd er the ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard . Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 5 97 , 16 9 L.Ed .2d44 5 (2 00 7) . W e “ fir st en su re tha t the di stric t co urt co m m it te d n o s ig ni fic an t p ro cedur al erro r, su ch as fai li ng to cal cu la te (orim pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g t he Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, s el ect in g a 2se nt en ce b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e-i nc lu di ng anex pl an at io n fo r an y de vi at io n fr om

th e Gui de li ne s ran ge .” Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S .Ct. at59 7; Uni te d Sta tes v. Li ves ay , 52 5 F .3d 10 81 , 10 93 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). A di st ric t co urt n eedno t ex pr es sl y di sc us s ea ch an d ev ery § 3 55 3( a) fa ct orat t he ti m e o f se nt en ci ng , bu t n eedon ly not e th atitha s co ns id eredth e d efen da nt ’s arg um en ts alo ng with § 35 53 (a)’s fa ct or . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 86 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Neve rth el es s, the co urt “ sh ou ldset fo rth en ou gh to sat is fy

th e ap pe ll at e co urt tha t h e h as co ns id eredth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d h as a reas on edba si s fo r ex erci si ng hi s o wn l eg al de ci si on m ak in g au th or it y .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ag ba i , 49 7 F .3d12 26 , 12 30 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . “ So m et im es th e ci rcu m st an ces wil l ca ll fora br ie f ex pl an at io n; so m et im es th ey wil l ca ll fora le ng th ie r ex pl an at io n.” Rita v . Uni te d St at es , 55 1 U.S. 3 38 , 35 7, 1 27 S.Ct . 24 56 , 24 68 , 16 8 L.Ed .2d20 3 (2 00 7) . Seco nd , we m

us t d et erm in e whe th er the sen te nc e im po se d i s s ub st an ti ve ly reas on ab le ba se d o n t he fact or s i n § 35 53 (a). Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S .Ct. at 59 7. Gal l in st ru ct s t ha t the di stric t co urt “ m us t m ak e anin di vi du al iz edass es sm en t ba se d o n t he fact s p res en te d.” Id. at50 , 12 8 S .Ct. at59 7. “ The weig htto be acco rd edan y

gi ve n § 35 53 (a) fa ct oris a m at te r co m m it te d t o the so un d d is cret io n of th e d is tri ctco urt,” abs en t a c le ar erro r of jud gm en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Cla y , 48 3 3F.3 d 7 39 , 74 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Howev er, “ a d is tri ctco urt’s

un jus ti fie d re li an ce upo n a ny on e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or[m ay be ] a sym

pt om of a n un reas on ab le sen te nc e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. C risp , 45 4 F .3d12 85 , 12 92 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d) (ho ld in g asen te nc e o f fi ve ho ur s’ im pr is on m en t u nr eas on ab le when th e d is tri ctco urt “ fo cu se d s in gl e-m in de dl y on th e g oa l o f res ti tu ti on to th e d etriment o f al l o f th e o th er s en te nc in g fa ct or s” ). Mo reo ve r, th e d is tri ctco urt m us t i m po se a se nt en ce tha t i s “ su ffi ci en t, b ut no t g reat er tha n n eces sa ry ,” to co m pl y with t he pu rp os es of s en te nc in g o f § 35 53 (a)( 2) , nam el y , to refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se , pro m ot e res pe ctfor th e la w, pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t, af fo rdad equa te de te rren ce, p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m furth er cr im es by the de fen da nt , andpro vi de th e d efen da ntwith app ro pr ia te co rrec ti on al tre atm en t o r m ed ic al care . Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). Add it io na ll y , th e co urt m

us t al so co ns id er the na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of the off en se , th e hi st ory an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt , th e k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e, th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , th e p ert in en t p ol ic y st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on , th e n eedto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s, an d the ne edto pr ov id e res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. Id. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (3 )-(7 ). Here, the reco rdrefl ect s t ha t M or al es -Vel azque z’s se nt en ces are pr oc edur al ly reaso nabl e b ecau se , des pi te th e d is tri ctco urt’s p ur po rte d 4m is st at em en t—th atth e se nt en ces were “ m or e th ansu ffi ci en t” —t he co urt ap pl ie d

th e co rrec t l eg al st an dardun de r § 3 55 3( a), an d i t ad equa te ly exp la in edit s re as on s fo r va ry in g upwa rdfro m

th e Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng e b as edonth e § 35 53 (a) se nt en ci ng pu rp os es . The s en te nc e was subs tant iv el y reas on ab le be cau se itm et th e g oa ls en co m

pa ss edwithi n § 35 53 (a), an d t he reco rddo es no t i nd ic at e th atth e co urt “ si ng le -m in de dl y ” fo cu se d o n the ne edforde te rren ce t o t he de tri m en t o f al l th e o th er § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . AFFIR MED.

5