[DO N OT PUBLISH]

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 15 87 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd er

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 1- cr-0 00 12 -RWS-SSC- 1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RONALD BAFILE, a.k .a. Dizz y , 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 fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st13 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT, an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-15876 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 1 of 5Ro na ldBafi le m ad e co un te rfei t Un it edSta te s cu rren cy . He us edth atfak e

m on ey to bu y dru gs , andhe als o s ol d i t fo r rea l m on ey . A fede ral gra ndjury in di ct edBafi le on on e co un t o f m ak in g c ou nt erfe itUni te d S ta te s cu rren cy in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 4 71 ; o ne co un t o f po ss es si ng co un te rfei t cu rren cy in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 4 72 ; an d o ne co un t o f se ll in g c ou nt erfe itcurren cy in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 4 73 . He pl ead edgu il ty to ea ch co un t. The pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort re co m m en de d aba se off

en se lev el of 9 un de r Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s § 2B 5.1 (a) (No v. 2 01 0) . The PSR reco m m en de d a2-l ev el in crea se un de r § 2 B5 .1(b )(1 )(B) be cau se th e fac e v al ue of th e co un te rfei t cu rren cy

ex ceed ed$5 ,00 0; a 4- le ve l i nc reas e u nd er § 2B 5.1 (b )(2 )(A) an d (b )(3 ) be cau se Bafi le m an uf actur edth e co un te rfei t Un it ed St at es cu rren cy ; an d a2-l ev el de crea se un de r § 3 E1.1 (a) fo r acc ep tanc e o f res po ns ib il it y . The res ul t was a to ta l o ffen se lev el of 1 3. The PSR ca lc ul at ed3 cr im in al hi st ory po in ts be cau se Bafi le ha d b een se nt en cedto 10 y ears in pri so n fo r a Geo rg iam etha m ph et am in e tr affi ck in g co nv ic ti on . It ad de d 2 m or e p oi nt s b ecau se he co m m it te d t he co un te rfei ti ng cri m es whi le onpa ro le forth e Geo rg iadru g c on vi ct io n. Se e U.S.S.G. § 4 A1.1 (d ). Bafi le ’s cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory was II I. The re su ltwas agu id el in es ran ge of 1 8 to 24 m on th s. Th e st atut ory m ax im um pri so n s en te nc e fo r eac h c ou ntwas 2 0 2 Case: 11-15876 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 2 of 5y ears . See 1 8 U.S.C. § § 4 71 –4 73 .

Bec au se of B afi le ’s cou nt erfe it in g c rimes, a Geo rg iast at e co urt re vo ke d h is pa ro le , andat t he ti m e o f hi s fe de ral sen te nc in g, Ba fil e h adsp en t 1 0 m on th s i n st at e cu st od y . Bafi le di d n otob ject t o t he PSR, b uthe ask edfora 10 -m on th do wnwar d d ep artur e b as edon hi s t im e in st at e cu st od y . See U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.3 cmt. n .3(E) (al lo win g adi st ric t co urt t o d own ward ly dep artfro m th e g ui de li ne s ran ge “ in anex tra or di na ry cas e” t o re fle ct“ a p eri odof i m pr is on m en t al read y se rv edon [an ] un di sc ha rg edterm of i m pr is on m en t” fora pa ro le vi ol at io n) . He al so ask edfora se nt en ce t ha t wo ul d ru n c on cu rren tl y to hi s s ta te pa ro le -rev oc at io n se nt en ce. The di stric t co urt ad op te d t he PSR, s ta te d t ha t i t h adco ns id eredth e 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, an d e xp la in edth atBafi le ’s cri m es were s eri ou s b ecau se th ey in vo lv edco un te rfei t cu rren cy an d d ru gs . The co urt al so st at edth atth e se nt en ce n eed edto de te r fu tu re cr im in al co nduc t b ecau se Bafi le ha d v io la te d h is pa ro le fora pr io r drug co nv ic ti on . It the n re jecte d B afi le ’s reque stfora do wnwar d d ep artur e an d s en te nc edhi m to 18 m on th s i n p ris on on each co un t, wit h t he sen te nc es to runco nc urren tl y to each ot he r an d t o h is st at e se nt en ce. Bafi le ap pe al s h is sen te nc e, co nt en di ng th atitis subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se he sh ou ldha ve rece iv eda be lo w-th e-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e to refl ectth e 3 Case: 11-15876 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 3 of 5ti m e h e sp en t i n s ta te cu st od y aft er h is pa ro le was re vo ke d b utbe fo re the di st ric t co urt s en te nc edhi m . Our s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss rev ie w is gu id edby the 1 fact or s i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Un it edSta te s v . Whi te , 66 3 F .3d12 07 , 12 17 (11 th Ci r. 20 11 ). The d is tri ctco urt i s re qu ire d t o i m po se a se nt en ce t ha t i s “ su ffi ci en t, bu t n otgre at er tha n n eces sary , to co m pl y wit h t he pu rp os es ” li st edin th atst atut ory pr ov is io n. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th ata se nt en ce i s un reas on ab le li es with t he pa rty chal le ng in g i t. Whit e, 66 3 F .3dat 1 21 7. We will va cat e a s en te nc e fo r subs ta nt iv e u nr eas on ab le ne ss “ if, b uton ly if, we are l eftwit h th e d efi ni te 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 the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s b y arri vi ng at asen 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 S ta te s v . Irey, 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (en ba nc ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Bafi le ’s 18 -m on th pri so n s en te nc e is no t u nr eas on ab le . It i s atth e b ot to m of hi s g ui de li ne s ra ng e, se e Whit e, 66 3 F .3dat 1 21 7 (“ W e o rd in ari ly exp ecta

To the extent Baf

ile contends that the district c ourt err ed by not downwar dly

depar ting 1 to refle ct his time in state custody , we lac k jurisdiction to review that de cision. See United States v. Dudley , 463 F.3d 1221, 1228 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (“We lac k jurisdiction to review a district court’s de cision to deny

a downwa

rd depa rture unle ss the district court incorr ectly believed that it lacke d authority

to gr ant the depa

rture. . . . [W] e have held that when nothingin the rec ord indicates other

wise, we assume the se ntencingcourt unde rstood it had authority to depar t downwar d.” (quotation marks omitted)). 4

Case: 11-15876 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 4 of 5se nt en ce wi th in th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e to be reas on ab le . . . .” (quo ta ti on m ark s

om it te d) ), an d i s wel l b el ow t he st atut ory m ax im um pri so n t erm

of 6 0 years, see

2 Uni te d S ta te s v . Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (h ol di ng th ata de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e was reas on ab le in pa rt b ecau se itwas wel l b el ow t he st atut ory m ax im um ). The re co rdsh ows th atth e d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredth e 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s an d B afi le ’s arg um en ts fora se nt en ce re fle ct in g t he ti m e he ha d a lre ady

serve d i n s ta te cu st ody . The co urt o rd eredth atth e se nt en ce ru n co nc urren tl y

to hi s s ta te paro le -rev oc at io n s en te nc e, ev enth ou gh th e g ui de li ne s reco m m en de d aco ns ecu ti ve sen te nc e. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1 .3 cmt. n .3(C ). The co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t i t was trying to st rik e a b al an ce b etween th e fed eral an d s ta te se nt en ces , andth e b al an ce i t s tru ckis reas on ab le . AFFIRMED.

The statutory

maxi mum prison sentence for e ach c ount was 20 year s, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 471–473, and “in theor

y the district court c ould have imposed c onsecutive se ntence s at the statutory maxi mum on each c ount,” United States v. Moriar ty , 429 F.3d 1012, 1021 n.6 ( 11th Cir. 2005). I f it had done so, the total se ntence would have be en 60 year s. 5 Case: 11-15876 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 5 of 5