[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-11895

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:18-cr-80194-DMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

RONNIE MONTSDEOCA, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(June 26, 2020)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR, and TJOFLAT, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 19-11895 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 1 of 4
2

Ronnie Montsdeoca appeals his 240-month sentence for bank robbery and 

attempted bank robbery. He argues on appeal that the District Court erred by 

failing to file a written statement of reasons justifying its upward variance. Such a 

statement is required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2).

We review a claim concerning a district court’s violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(c)(2) de novo, regardless of whether the argument was presented before the 

district court. See United States v. Parks, 823 F.3d 990, 996 (11th Cir. 2016). In 

reviewing a sentence, we apply a harmless error standard — any error, defect, 

irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights is harmless and must 

be disregarded. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a).

When a defendant is sentenced, the district court must state in open court the 

reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). If the 

sentence exceeds the advisory guideline range, the court must give the specific 

reasons for the sentence imposed, which also must be stated with specificity in a 

written statement of reasons form. Id. § 3553(c)(2). The court should state enough 

reasons to satisfy the appellate court that it has considered the parties’ arguments 

and has a justifiable basis for exercising its discretion to vary upward. Rita v. 

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007).

Case: 19-11895 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 2 of 4
3

Here, Montsdeoca’s imposed sentence was 240 months, which was an 

upward variance from his Guidelines sentencing range of 168 to 210 months.1 The 

District Court erred by failing to provide a written statement of reasons form for its 

upward variance. However, the error was harmless, as the Court sufficiently 

explained its reasoning during sentencing to allow for meaningful appellate review. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2); United States v. Suarez, 939 F.2d 929, 934 (11th Cir. 

1991); United States v. Delvecchio, 920 F.2d 810, 813 (11th Cir. 1991). The court 

orally stated several reasons for Montsdeoca’s above-guideline sentence —

principally, the length and severity of his criminal record and his demonstrated 

recidivism even after a previous sentence for bank robbery. In doing so, the Court

demonstrated that it had thoroughly considered the § 3553(a) factors and 

determined that those factors justified the degree of the variance. See United 

States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008). 

Further, Montsdeoca fails to point to any specific way in which he has been 

harmed by the District Court’s failure to prepare a written § 3553(c)(2) report. 

Generally, the harm incurred by the defendant when a district court fails to prepare 

a written report is that it is not available for the Bureau of Prisons’ review, which is 

what Montsdeoca argues has occurred in this case. See United States v. 

1 Montsdeoca does not challenge the substantive reasonableness of the imposed sentence 

on appeal.

Case: 19-11895 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 3 of 4
4

Massengill, 319 F. App’x 879, 884 (11th Cir. 2009). However, Montsdeoca’s

extensive criminal history, which was the primary basis for the District Court’s 

decision to vary upward, is readily available to the Bureau of Prisons through the 

presentence investigation report and other records. For these reasons, any error by 

the court in not stating its specific reasons in written form was harmless because it 

did not affect Montsdeoca’s substantial rights. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). 

Accordingly, we affirm Montsdeoca’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-11895 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 4 of 4