FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 15, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 37 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cr-1 40 30 -KMM -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, lll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MANUEL RUIZ QUIROZ, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 1 5, 2 01 1) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Man ue l Ru iz Qui ro z ap pe al s h is to ta l 1 20 -m on thsen te nc e, im po se d a fte r hi s co nv ic ti on on two co un ts of m ai l fr au d, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 41 . Thedi st ric t co urt i m po se d a n upwa rdva ria nc e o f 42 m on th s ab ov e th e advi so ry gu id el in es ran ge of 6 3- 78 m on th s. Qu iro z arg ue s tha t h is sen te nc e is un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt erro ne ou sl y rel ie d o n h is pri orarre streco rdinth e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( “ PSI” ) an d a tt ach edun du e wei gh t t o re m ot e an d di ss im il ar p rio r cri m in al co nduc t.

“ W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n u si ng a two -s te p p ro ces s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. To me , 61 1 F .3d13 71 , 13 78 (11 th Cir .), cer t. de ni ed , 13 1 S .Ct. 6 74 (20 10 ). Thi s “ de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard ” ap pl ie s re ga rd le ss of wh ethe r th e se nt en ce i s “ in si de , justou ts id e, orsi gn ifi can tl y ou ts id e th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Li ves ay , 52 5 F .3d10 81 , 10 90 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . “ The pa rty chal le ng in g t he sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n t o s ho w itis un reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e rec or d andth e § 35 53 (a) fact or s.” To me , 61 1 F .3dat 1 37 8. Fi rs t, we l oo k fo r an y

si gn ifi can t p ro cedur al erro rs , su chas i m pr op er ap pl ic at io n o f th e Gui de li ne s, fa il ur e to co ns id er § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, b as in g a se nt en ce o n c le arl y

erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai lure t o a de qu at el y ex pl ai n t he sen te nc e im po se d. Li ves ay , 52 5 F .3dat 1 09 1. Se co nd , we rev ie w th e subs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e b y tak in g i nt o a cco un t the “ to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces ” an d “ gi v[ in g] du e d efer en ce t o t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si onth atth e 2§ 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, o n awho le , just ify the ex te ntof t he va ria nc e.” Id
. (quo ta ti on

om itte d) . Und er the subs tant iv e rea so nabl en es s p ro ng , th e “ di st ric t co urt ab us es it s d is cret io n wh enit(1) fai ls to affo rdco ns id erat io n t o re le va ntfact or s tha t wer e du e si gn ifi can t wei gh t, (2 ) gi ve s s ig ni fic an t wei gh t t o a n i m pr op er o r irrel ev an t fact or , or (3 ) co m

m it s a c le ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n c on si de rin g t he pro pe r fac to rs .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 89 (11 thCir . 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ), cer t. d en ie d 13 1 S . Ct. 1 81 3 (2 01 1) . Howev er, we wil l “ va cat e th e se nt en ce i f, bu t o nl y if, we are l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti onth atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d a cl ear e rro r of

jud gm en t i n wei gh in g t he § 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.” Id
. at 1 19 0 (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Qui ro z’s ab ov e-g ui de li ne sen te nc e is no t u nr eas on ab le . The d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d tho ro ug hl y ex pl ai ne d i ts reas on in g fo r im po si ng anup wardva ria nc e. The d is tri ctco urt, i n re lying on th e unc on te st ed fact s o f Qui ro z’s cri m in al hi st ory inth e PSI, d idno t co ns id er cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s i n d et erm in in g t he sen te nc e. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. S he lt on , 40 0 F .3d13 25 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th atfact s i n t he PSI ar e d eem edadm it te d wh ena de fen da ntm ak es no factua l o bjec ti on s t o t he PSI).

3Fu rth erm or e, th e se nt en ce i s n otsubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le m erel y

be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredQui ro z’s pr io r arre st s an d c riminal co nv ic ti on s fr om th e PSI. Se e, e.g ., Uni te d Sta tes v. S ha w , 56 0 F .3d12 30 , 12 39 -4 1 (1 1t h C ir. 20 09 ). Fir st , with re sp ectto th e arr es ts an d c on vi ct io ns th atdi d n otco un t t owa rd s hi s cr im in al hi st ory

forgu id el in es purp os es , th is in fo rm at io n i s s ti ll rel ev an t i n de te rm in in g t he fin al sen te nc e. Se e To me , 61 1 F .3dat 1 37 9 (h ol di ng th ata di st ric t co urt i s fr ee t o c on si de r an y rel ev an t i nf

orm at io n o n “ ba ck gr ou nd , charact er, an d co nduc t,” i nc lu di ng co nduc t n otres ul ti ng ina co nv ic ti on ); se e a ls o, 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 1. Ad di ti on al ly, th e d is tri ctco urt m ay co ns id er fa ct s tha t h av e al read y be en ta ke n i nt o a cco un t i n c al cu la ti ng th e se nt en ci ng ran ge . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. W il li ams , 52 6 F .3d13 12 , 13 23 -2 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (ho ld in g t ha t co ns id erat io n o f a d efen da nt ’s pri orcri m es “ fit s s qu arel y in to on e o f th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, the hi st ory an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e o ffen de r,” reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th os e o ffen se s were al read y

in cl ud edinth e d efen da nt ’s cri m in al hi st ory sco re). Fi na ll y , as n ot ed by the di st ric t co urt, the reco rddo es no t s up po rt t he arg um en t tha t Qu iro z’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r cri m es co m m it te d b etweenth e ag es of 1 9 a nd24 were t oo rem ot e. The di stric t co urt ca refu ll y rev ie wedQui ro z’s cri m in al hi st ory an d o ffer ed hi m anop po rtu ni ty to s ta te an y m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces to he lp ex pl ai n o r m in im iz e th e se ve rit y

of h is cri m in al hi st ory . The d is tri ctco urt em ph as iz ed 4Qui ro z’s co nt in ue d c riminal co nduc t ev enaft er re cei vi ng len ie ntsen te nc es an d

pr ob at io n fo r hi s p rio r cri m es . A revi ew of th e rec or d a s a wh ol e in di cat es th atth e di st ric t co urt co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d d et erm in edth atQui ro z’s le ng th y cri m in al hi st ory , per

pe tu al reci di vi sm , andlac k o f res pe ctforth e la w all warrant edanab ov e-g ui de li ne sen te nc e. Whi le we th us fin d n o re ve rs ib le erro r inth e d is tri ctco urt’s 1 20 -m on th se nt en ce, the re ap pe ars to be a cl eri cal erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt ju dg m en t. The jud gm en t s ta te s tha t “ de fen da ntpl ead edgu il ty to Co un t(s ) 1 a nd2 o f th e in di ctm en t” wher eas th e rec or d c le arl y in di cat es th atQui ro z was co nv ic te d fo ll owi ng a jury tria l. Tho ug h n ei th er o f th e p art ie s ra is edth is is su e, we m ay rai se th e is su e o f cl eri cal erro rs inth e jud gm en t su a s po nt e an d re m an d wi th in st ru ct io ns th atth e d is tri ctco urt co rrec t the erro rs . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ca mpo s-Diaz , 47 2 F .3d12 78 , 12 80 (11 thCir . 20 06 ). Altho ug h we a ffi rm Qui ro z’s se nt en ce as to th e rea so nabl en es s i ss ue s ra is edon ap pe al , we vac at e an d rem an d fo r th e li m it edpu rp os e o f co rrec ti ng th is erro r. AFFIRMED I N PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. 1

Quiroz’s reque st for ora l argument is denied. 1 5