FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 11, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1349 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 04-00311 -CR- 01-BBM-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us JI MM Y J. ROBERS ON, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- (M ay 1 1, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H and H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant- Appe llant J im

m y Ro be rs on a

ppe al s hi s 26 2- m onth se nte nc e fo r
ro bbe ry , 18 U
. S. C. § 19 51, and u se of af ir earm dur ing ac ri m e of

vio le nc e, 18 U. S. C. § 924 (c). Roberson argues that he is 56 y ears old and suffers f rom m ental2

ill ne ss, w hic h he c la im s im pa ct ed on h is p as t and c ur

re nt c ri m ina l of

fe nse s; and h e
as se rts th athe sh ou ldha ve rece iv eda se nt en ce b el ow h is Gui de li ne s ra ng e. No
r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. W e re vie wRo be rs on’ s se nte nc e im pose d by the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or reasonableness in the ligh t of the fac tors set out at 18 U.S. C. § 355 3(a). U nited St at es v. W ini nge ar , 422 F
. 3d 1 241, 124 4- 46 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5)
. U nde r se ct ion 3553 (a ), adis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r, a m ong oth er thi ngs, the na tur e an d ci rc um stanc es of

the of fe nse , the his tor

y and c hara ct er ist ic s of

the de fe ndant, the
ne ed f or a de qua te de te rr en ce and p ro te ct ionof the pub lic , pol ic y

state m en ts o f the Se nte nc ing Co m

m iss ion , pr ovi sio n f

or the m ed ic al and e duc at ion al ne ed s of the de fe ndant, and the ne ed

to av oid unw ar rante d se nte nc ing dis pari tie s. S ee 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53( a) (1 )- (7 ). “ Re vie wf or r ea sona ble ne ss i s de fe re nti al ”; and “ the party w ho c ha lle nge s th e se nte nc e be ar s th e bur de n of e sta bli shi ng tha t the
se nte nc e is unr ea sona

ble in the li ght

of [ the ] r ec or d and the f

ac tor s inse ct ion 35 53 (a).” Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e conclude that Roberson’s sentence wa s reasonable. The district court
se nte nc ed him to the low es t po int

of his G uid el ine s r an ge of

262 to 327 m onths’Roberson’s Guide lines rang e wa s calc ulated pursu an t t o t h e caree r off ender provisions of 1 U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(c ). R o b erson’s previous convictions included strongarm robbe ry , attempted s tr o n gar mr o b b e r y, an d r o b b e r y. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

re c omm e nd e d th at Ro be rs on be se nt t o a

B ur e a u o f P ri so ns me nta l he a lth 2 fac ility for se rvice of his sentenc e. 3 im pr iso nm en t. S ee id. ( not ing that “ or din ar ily w e w oul d e xpe ct

ase nte nc e w ith in 1 the Guidelines range to be rea sonable”). And in sent encing Roberson, the district court noted th e section 3553 (a) factors and comm ented in particular on the nature and circum stances of Roberson’ s offense, his his tory and charac teristics, the nee d fo r the se nte nc e to r ef

le ct the se ri ousn es s of

the of fe nse and t o a ff

or d a de qua te de te rr en ce , and the ne ed

to pr ote ct

the pub lic and t o pr ovi de Ro be rs on w ith treatm ent. T he district court was not required to discuss all of the section 3 553(a)

2 fa ct or s a t the se nte nc ing he ar ing
. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. S co tt, 426 F
. 3d 1 324, 132 9 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) ( expla ini ng tha t “ nothin g inBo oke r or e lse w he re r equir es the dis tr ic t c ourt t o st at e on the r ec or d th at it ha s e xpl ic itl y

c onsi de re d e ac h of

the section 355 3(a) f

actors or to discuss each of the section 355 3(a) f actors”). In additio n, although th e district court heard Roberson’ s argum ents for a sentence be lowhis G uid el ine s r an ge , the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that the Guid el ine s r an ge did not ove rr ep re se nt R obe rs on’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry and tha t a

se nte nc e w ith in the Guidelines range w as appropriate. N othin g in the record convinces us th at Ro be rs on’ s se nte nc e w as unr ea sona ble in the li ght

of the se ct ion355 3( a) f

ac tor s.4

AFFIR MED.