FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUG 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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 1- 10 15 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-2 03 35 -UU-9 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 Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us MIC HAEL MATHIS, 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 st22 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Mi ch ael Mat hi s ap pe al s h is sen te nc e o f 10 y ears ’ supe rv is edrel eas e fo r co ns pi racy to p os se ss wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C.§ 8 46 . He arg ue s t ha t t he ex ces si ve pe rio d o f supe rv is edrel eas e was pro cedur al ly

un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t g iv e su ffi ci en t ju st ifi cat io n fo r th e se nt en ce. He al so ass ert s t ha t i t was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se th e se nt en ce d oe s n otserve th e p ur po se s o f th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es an d i s g reat er th anne ces sa ry

to co m pl y wit h andpro m ot e th e p ur po se s o f th e st atut ory se nt en ci ng go al s.

“ [A] sen te nc e m ay

be rev ie wedforpro cedur al or s ub st an ti ve un reas on ab le ne ss .” Uni te d Sta te s v. El liso r , 52 2 F .3d12 55 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e rev ie w bo th th e p ro cedur al an d s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Id

. at12 73 n.2 5. Inrev ie win g wh ethe r a s en te nc e is reas on ab le , we m us t en su re, fi rs t, tha t th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t co m m ita si gn ifi can t p ro cedur al erro r, “ su ch as f ai li ng to cal cu la te (orim

pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g t he 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 in th e ch os ensen te nc e.” Gal l v. Un it ed

St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 , 59 7 (2 00 7) . “ [T]he se nt en ci ng jud ge sh ou ldsetforth en ou gh to sat is fy th e ap pe ll at e co urt t ha t h e h as co ns id eredth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d h as a reas on edba si s fo r ex erci si ng hi s o wn le ga l d eci si on m ak in g aut ho rit y .” Uni te d Sta te s v. Ag ba i , 49 7 F .3d12 26 , 12 30 2(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (ci ta ti onan d quo ta ti on om it te d) . Howev er, the di st ric t co urt n eed

no t d is cu ss or e xp li ci tl y

st at e o n t he reco rdeach § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or . Uni te d Sta te s v. Sc ot t , 42 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ Rat he r, anackno wled gm en t b y th e di st ric t ju dg e th athe or s he ha s co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s wi ll su ffi ce.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Amedeo , 48 7 F .3d82 3, 8 32 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). W e m us t t he n de te rm in e whe th er the sen te nc e is subs tant iv el y reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S . Ct. at59 7. Th e se nt en ci ng co urt sh al l i m po se a se nt en ce “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er tha n n eces sa ry ” to co m pl y wit h th e p ur po se s o f se nt en ci ng setforth in § 3 55 3( a)(2 ), na m el y , to refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he off

en se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , det er cr im in al co nduc t, p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m furth er cr im in al co nduc t b y

th e d efen da nt , andpro vi de th e d efen da ntwith n eed ededuc at io na l tra in in g, v oc at io na l t rai ni ng , m ed ic al care , or o th er co rrec ti on al tre at m en t i n t he m os t ef fect iv e m an ne r. 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). In i m po si ng a pa rti cu lar se nt en ce, th e co urt m

us t al so co ns id er the na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of the off en se , th e hi st ory an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt , th e k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e, th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , th e p ert in en t p ol ic y st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on , th e n eedto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s, an d the ne edto pr ov id e res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s . 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (3 )-(7 ). 3“ The rev ie w forsubs ta nt iv e u nr eas on ab le ne ss in vo lv es ex am in in g the

to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g a n i nq ui ry in to whet he r th e st atut ory fact or s i n § 35 53 (a) s up po rt t he sen te nc e in qu es ti on .” Uni te d Sta te s v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). “ [T]he p art y who ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce be ars 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 in th e li gh t o f bo th [th e] reco rdan d t he fact or s i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a).” Uni te d Sta te s v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F.3 d 7 84 , 78 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . “ The weig htto be acco rd edan y gi ve n § 35 53 (a) fact or is a m at te r co m

m it te d t o t he so un d d is cret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt.” Uni te d St at es v. W

il li ams , 52 6 F .3d13 12 , 13 22 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on s an d a lt erat io n om it te d) . W e v acat e a s en te nc e o nl y if “ le ft wi th th e d efi ni te an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar err or

of ju dg m 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 se nt en ces di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S . Ct. 1 81 3 (2 01 1) (qu ot at io n om it te d) . The rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e m ay be in di cat edwhen th e se nt en ce im po se d was well be lo w th e st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e. Se e Gon za le

z , 55 0 F .3d at13 24 . Mat hi s’s s en te nc e is bo th pro cedur al ly andsubs tant iv el y reas on ab le . It i s pr oc edur al ly reaso nabl e b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt ad equa te ly exp la in edit s re as on s 4fo r se nt en ci ng Mat hi s t o 1 0 years’ supe rv is edrel eas e b y st at in g t ha t i t co ns id ered th e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d the st atut ory fact or s. The co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t i t was im po si ng th e 1 0 years o f supe rv is edrel eas e b ecau se itva rie d d ownto 12 0 m on th s’ of im pr is on m en t an d wan te d t o h ol d h im acco un tabl e if

he bro ke th e la w inth e fu tu re. It i s s ub st an ti ve ly reaso nabl e b ecau se itis well be lo w th e st atut ory m ax im um an d h el ps de te r fu tu re cr im in al co nduc t b y hi m . Furt he rm or e, ba se d o n Mat hi s’s h is to ry

an d c haract eri st ic s as a care er o ffen de r, an d t he de te rren ce ef fect th atth e ex te nd edsupe rv is edrel eas e wil l h av e o n h is futur e cri m in al co nduc t, the se nt en ce i s n otgre at er tha n n eces sa ry . Becau se th e se nt en ce i s p ro cedur al ly and subs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . AFFIRMED. 1

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