FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 24, 2011 J OHN LEY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 91 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-2 05 24 -ASG-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 PEDRO DESOUSA, a.k .a. Pedro J. De So us a, 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st24 , 20 11 ) Befo re WILSON, MARTIN, an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Pedro DeSo us a ap pe al s h is 33 -m on th sen te nc e, im po se d a fte r he pl ead ed gu il ty to o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to c omm itm ai l an d wi re fraud , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 34 9. DeSo us a co nt en ds th athi s s en te nc e is subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le . Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm . I. W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e und er a “ de fere nt ia l ab us e-o fdi sc ret io n s tand ard .” Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 41 , 12 8 S . Ct. 5 86 , 59 1 (2 00 7) . In re vi ewin g asen te nc e fo r reas on ab le ne ss , we per fo rm two st ep s. Un it ed St at es v. Sh aw, 56 0 F .3d12 30 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Fir st , we ens ur e th atth e di st ric t co urt d idno t co m m itsi gn ifi can t p ro cedur al erro r, “ su chas f ai li ng to cal cu la te (orim

pr op erl y cal cu lati 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, s el ect in g asen te nc e b as ed on cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to ad equa te ly exp la inth e ch os en se nt en ce— in cl ud in g an e xp lana ti on forany de vi at io n fr om

th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e.” Gall , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S . Ct. at59 7. If we co nc lu de th atno pro cedur al erro r oc curred , “ th e se co ndst ep is to rev ie w th e se nt en ce’s ‘subs tant iv e rea so nabl en es s’ un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g ‘th e ex te ntof a ny vari an ce fr om th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e.’” Sh aw, 56 0 F .3dat 1 23 7 (quo ti ng Gall , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S . Ct. at59 7) . 2“ Altho ug h we d o n otau to m at ic al ly pres um e a s en te nc e withi n the [G]uid el in es

ran ge is reas on ab le , we ‘ or di na ril y . . . ex pe cta se nt en ce wi th inth e Gui de li ne s ran ge to be reas on ab le .’ ” Uni te d S ta te s v . Hun t, 5 26 F.3d73 9, 7 46 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 )) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ). “ The party chal le ng in g the reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e ‘bears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le inth e li gh t o f bo th [th e] reco rdan d the fact or s i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a).’” Uni te d S ta te s v . Flo res , 57 2 F.3 d 1 25 4, 1 27 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (qu ot in g Tal le y , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88 ) (al te rat io n i n or ig in al ). DeSo us a d oe s n otco nt en d tha t the di st ric t co urt co m mit te d p ro cedur al erro r. Rathe r, he arg ue s tha t h is 33 -m on th sen te nc e, whi chwas wi th inhi s Gu id el in es ’ ran ge of 2 7 t o 3 3 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le be cau se it is gre at er than n eces sa ry

to ach ie ve th e p ur

po se s o f se nt en ci ng . Howev er, DeSo us a fai ls to off

er an y reas on why th e rec or d d oe s n otsupp ort h is sen te nc e. Acco rd in gl y , DeSo us a h as no t ca rri edhi s b ur de n o f sh owi ng th athi s s en te nc e is un reas on ab le . See Fl or es , 57 2 F .3dat 1 27 0. AFFIRMED.

3