[DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 86 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 9- cr-0 03 22 -TJC -TEM-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 l l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DANIEL W ILLIAM VIGIL, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 21 , 20 12 ) Befo re PRYOR, JORDAN an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

Case: 11-15869 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 1 of 4PER CURI AM:

Dan ie l Vi gi l ap pe al s h is 13 5- m on th sen te nc e im po se d a fte r pl ead in g g ui lt y to two co un ts of b an k ro bb ery in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 11 3( a). On app eal , Vig il arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt i m po se d s en te nc es th atwere p ro cedur al ly and subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . W e rev ie w a se nt en ce i m po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt fo r rea so nabl en es s, us in g atwo -s te p d efer en ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 6, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 5 94 , 16 9 L.Ed .2d44 5 (2 00 7) ; Uni te d Sta te s v. Sa rr as , 57 5 F .3d11 91 , 12 19 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The p art y ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e ha s t he bu rd ento est ab li sh th atth e se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le . Uni te d Sta te s v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e fi rs t m

us t d et erm in e th atth e “ di st ric t co urt co m m it te d n o s ig ni fic an t pr oc edur al erro r.” Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S .Ct. at59 7. Si gn ifi can t p ro cedur al erro rs in cl ud e im

pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g the 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, b as in g asen te nc e o n cl earl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to pro vi de anad equa te ex pl an at io n fo r th e ch os ensen te nc e. Id. If a d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie s a v ari an ce fr om th e g ui de li ne s, t he

“ jus ti fic at io n fo r [i t] m

us t b e su ffi ci en tl y

co m pe ll in g t o s up po rt t he de gr ee o f th e va ria nc e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 87 (11 thCir .20 10 ) (en banc ) 2 Case: 11-15869 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 2 of 4(quo ta ti onom it te d) , cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 81 3 (2 01 1) . If the di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on is pro cedur al ly reaso nabl e, ou r an al y si s t he n tu rn s t o the subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f th e se nt en ce. Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at46 , 12 8 S.Ct . at 5 94 . W e rev ie w th e to ta li ty of th e fac ts an d c irc um st an ces to gaug e fo r subs ta nt iv e err or . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 89 -9 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) ( en ba nc ), cer t. d

en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 81 3 (2 01 1) . Und er the de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard , we wil l re m an d fo r res en te nc in g o nl y when “ le ft wit h t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of jud gm en t i n wei gh in g t he § 3 55 3( a) fac to rs by arriv in g a t a s en te nc e th atli es ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Pugh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Inth is cas e, Vig il ’s sen te nc e was pro cedur al ly reaso nabl e b ecau se th e di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y

cal cu la te d t he advi so ry

gu id el in e ran ge , ade qu at el y co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, an d s uf fic ie nt ly exp la in edit s ra ti on al e fo r an up wardva ria nc e. Se e Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 . Alth ou gh th e d is tri ctco urt as ke d t he pr ob at io n o ffi cer t o c al cu la te analt ern at iv e g ui de li ne ran ge , th e rec or d d oe s n ot refl ectth atth e d is tri ctco urt ac tu al ly reli edup on th is alt ern at iv e cal cu la ti on in fo rm ul at in g Vi rg il ’s sen te nc e. Vig il ha s n otm ethi s b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g pr oc edur al un reas on ab le ne ss . 3

Case: 11-15869 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 3 of 4Reg ard in g Vi rg il ’s cla im of s ub st an ti ve un reas on ab le ne ss , th e co urt ex pl ic it ly con si de redth e § 35 53 (a) s en te nc in g fa ct or s, i nc lu di ng th e ch arac te ris ti cs an d c on du ctof t he de fen da nt , andth atth e se nt en ce b e su ffi ci en t b utno t g reat er th anne ces sa ry

to ach ie ve th e p ur

po se s o f se nt en ci ng . The s en te nc in g c ou rt ob se rv edth atVig il en ga ge d i n a“ cri m e sp ree” by comm it ti ng fou r ba nkrob be rie s in a si x- day

sp an , all whi le on supe rv is edrel eas e fo r a p rev io us arm edba nk ro bb ery. Vig il ha s n otm ethi s b ur de n t o s ho w th athi s 1 35 -m on th sen te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . AFFIRMED.

4 Case: 11-15869 Date Filed: 09/21/2012 Page: 4 of 4