[DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 33 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 3 :0 9- cr-0 00 28 -MC R-1
UNITED STAT ES,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us GERARDO MORA CERANO,
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 ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 7, 2 01 2)
Befo re TJ OFLAT, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Cir cu it Ju dg es
. PER CURI AM:

Gerar do Mo ra Ceran o app eal s h is sen te nc e of 24 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t for Case: 10-10338 Date Filed: 10/17/2012 Page: 1 of 4co ns pi rin g to po ss es 5 ki lo gr am s or m or e of co cai ne wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e an d

po ss es s i n g 5 k i l o g r am s or m or e of co cai ne wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e. Se e 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 )-(b )(1 )(A) & 84 6. Mr. Mo ra co nt en ds th at th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e
di st ric t co ur t was un ne ces sa ril y le ng th y an d, t he refo re, s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le

. Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rd an d t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we affi rm
. W e rev ie w a se nt en ce fo r su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss un de r a n ab us e of
di sc ret io n st an da rd

. Se e Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38 , 51 (2 00 7)

. Rev ers al is 1

ap pr op ria te if we are “ le ft wit h th e de fin it e an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t

co m m it te d a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e [1 8 U

. S

. C .] § 35 53 (a) fact or s by arri vi ng at a se nt en ce tha t li es ou ts id e th e ran ge of reas on ab le se nt en ces di ct at ed by th e fact s of th e cas e.” Uni te d St at es v. Ir ey, 61 2 F.3 d 11 60 , 11 90 (1 1 Ci r. 20 10 ) th ( en ba nc ).
Th e d i s t ric t co ur t fo un d – an d th ere is no ch al le ng e to th is fin di ng on ap p e a l

– th at Mr. Mo ra di st rib ut ed 42 .5 ki lo gr am s of co cai ne
. Th a t q u an ti ty of dr ug s,

co m bi ne d wit h a Cri m in al His to ry Cat eg or y o f I I , es ta bl is he d an ad vi so ry ran ge of
21 0- 26 2 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t un de r th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s fo r Mr. Mo ra. Se e
D.E. 1 9 9 at 41

. At se nt en ci ng , Mr. Mo ra, th ro ug h co un se l, req ue st ed a se nt en ce

1 The g overnme nt a rg ues that we should r eview only for plain err or, but w e need not addre ss this contention because the sentenc e is rea sonable unde r the a buse of discr etion standard.
2 Case: 10-10338 Date Filed: 10/17/2012 Page: 2 of 4to ward “ th e lo wer en d of th e g u i d e l i n e s
. ” Se e id

. The go ve rn m en t, in co nt ras t,

so ug ht a se nt en ce at th e to p of th e gu id el in es
. Se e id

. at 45 -4 6. The di st ric t co ur t, as

no te d ab ov e, se nt en ced Mr. Mo ra to 24 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t aft er in di cat in g th at
it ha d co ns id ered al l of th e se n t e n c i n g f a ct or s se t fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) an d

no ti ng th at th e se nt en ce was su ffi ci en t, bu t no t gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry , to co m pl y wit h
th e p ur po se s o f se nt en ci ng
. Se e id

. at 47 -4 8.
Bec au se Mr. Mo ra di d no t req ue st a va ria nc e, an d so ug ht on ly a se nt en ce ne ar

t h e lo wer en d of th e gu id el in es – i.e., a se nt en ce of aro un d 21 0 m on th s

– h i s

c h a l l e ng e on ap pe al is to a se nt en ce whi ch is , at m os t, 30 m on th s m or e t h a n h e
req ue st ed

. W e or di na ril y ex pe ct th at a se nt en ce wit hi n th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es wil l

2
be reas on ab le , se e Uni te d St at es v. Hun t, 52 6 F.3 d 73 9, 74 6 (1 1 Ci r. 20 08 ), an d on th
th is reco rd , we can no t sa y th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s 24 0- m on th se nt en ce co ns ti tu te d an
ab us e of di sc ret io n. Fi rs t, th ere was ev id en ce th at Mr. Mo ra so ld on e of th e ki lo gr am
of co cai ne fo r $3 0,0 00

. Se e D

. E. 1 9 8 at 31

. Usi ng th at fig ur e as a ba ll pa rk pr ic e,
Mr. Mo ra’s sa le s to ta le d ap pr ox im at el y $1 mi l l i on
. Mr. Mo ra, in sh or t, was no t a

sm al l-t im e de al er. Seco nd , Mr. Mo ra co m m it te d t h e n a rco ti cs of

fen se s aft er re2 We do not me an to sug g est that 30 months in custody is insignifica

nt for Mr. Mora (or fo r an y o t h er defe ndant). We note only that, beca use of his reque st to the district court for a sentenc e towards the lower end of the g uidelines, the rea sonablene ss challeng e is to a sentenc e that is at most 30 mont hs more than he asked f or. 3 Case: 10-10338 Date Filed: 10/17/2012 Page: 3 of 4en te rin g th e co un try il le ga ll y
. Thi rd , Mr. Mo ra us ed a nu m be r of al ia se s. Fo ur th , th e
di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Mr. Mo ra ha d ob st ru ct ed jus ti ce by pr ov id in g fal se te st im on y

at th e be nc h tri al

. Se e D.E. 19 9 at 41

. In de ed , th e di st ric t co ur t sa id t h a t it was

“ un ab le to acce pt an y th in g t ha t [M r. Mo ra] ha[d ] te st ifi ed ab ou t.” Id

. at 40

. Mr. Mo ra ne ve rth el es s as se rts th at th e di st ric t co u r t s h o ul d ha ve gi ve n m or e weig ht to th e fact th at he wil l be de po rte d to Mex ic o on ce he co m pl et es hi s se nt en ce.
As Mr. Mo ra pu t s it , h e “ wil l ha ve no reas on to try an d re-e nt er th e [Un it ed St at es ]

on ce he is free ” an d in “ m id dl e ag e wit h no fam il y or co m m un it y ti es he re[.]” App el la nt ’s Br. at 29

. Tha t argu m en t do es no t carry th e da y fo r Mr. Mora , who ha s
al read y ch os en to re-e nt er th e co un try il le ga ll y , wit h no fam il y or co m m un it y ti es , to

se ll dr ug s. And , be cau se th ere i s n o m an da to ry ret ire m en t ag e fo r th os e in th e dr ug

tra de , th ere is no gu aran te e th at M r
. M o r a , who wil l be in hi s m id -5 0s whe n he
fin is he s hi s se nt en ce, wil l ch oo se to en ga ge in le gi ti m at e wor k o n c e he is rel eas ed

.

A F F I R M E D .

4 Case: 10-10338 Date Filed: 10/17/2012 Page: 4 of 4