[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 32 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :1 1- cr-0 04 43 -WSD-AJB-1 UNITED STAT ES, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us MOISES R AMALES-CASTILLO, 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 Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 3 0, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Cir cu it Ju dg es . PER CURI AM:

Mo is es Ram al es -Cas ti ll o pl ed gu il ty to il le ga ll y re-e nt eri ng th e Uni te d St at es Case: 12-11326 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 1 of 3in vi ol at io n of 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a) & (b )(2 ). The di st ric t co ur t im po se d a se nt en ce of 70 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, at th e bo tt om of th e ad vi so ry ran ge of 70 -8 7 m on th s un de r th e ad vi so ry Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. On ap pe al , Mr. Ram al es -Cas ti ll o – who
req ue st ed a do wnwar d de pa rtu re an d do wnwar d va ria nc e to a se nt en ce of 36 m on th s

– co nt en ds th at th e 70 -m on th se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e di sa gr ee,

an d a ffi 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 s ta nd ard

. Se e Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1 (2 00 7) . Rev ers al is
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 mi t t e 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 lie s 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 ). On th is reco rd , th e 70 -m on th se nt en ce, whi ch w a s wit hi n th e ad vi so ry
g u i d e li ne ran ge , was no t su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. Fi rs t, as th e di st ric t co ur t

n ot ed , Mr. Ram al es -Cas ti ll o ret ur ne d to th e Uni te d St at es on ly a week aft e r b e i n g

rem ov ed , an d th is sh owe d th at he di d “ no t in te nd to co m pl y ” wit h th e la w. Seco nd , aft er ret ur ni ng to th e Uni te d St at es il le ga ll y , Mr. Ram al es -Cas ti ll o was co nv ic te d of ba tt e ry in Geo rg ia

. Thi rd , Mr. Ram al es -Cas ti ll o ha d a nu m be r of pr io r fel on y

2 Case: 12-11326 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 2 of 3co nv ic ti on s – res ul ti ng in a cri m in al hi st or y cat e g o r y of V – an d th e di st ric t co ur t

fo un d th at he ha d “ en ga ge d in pr et ty se rio us cri m in al act iv it y ” r a n g i n g fro m

“ si gn ifi can t pr op ert y of

fen se s to si gn ifi can t dr

ug of fen se s.” Fo ur th , th e di st ric t co ur t

co ns id ered , an d reject ed , t h e c l a im of cu lt ur al as si m il at io n (u nd er a do wnwar d de pa rtu re th eo ry an d a do wnwar d va ria nc e th eo ry ), se e, e.g ., U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2, cm t. (n

. 8) , be cau se Mr. Ram al es -Cas ti ll o ha d m ov ed to Geo r g i a w h i l e hi s fam il y

rem ai ne d in Cal ifo rn ia , th e c o n d u c t in whi ch Mr. Ram al es -Cas ti ll o ha d en ga ge d

“ pr es en t[e d] se rio us ris k to th e co m m un it y ,” an d al th ou gh Ram al es -Cas ti ll o ha d be en in th e Uni te d St at es “ fo r a lo ng ti m e, th ere [was ] no t a lo t o f ev id en ce t ha t h e ha [d ] be co m e p art of t he Am eri can fab ric .”
A F F I R M E D .

3 Case: 12-11326 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 3 of 3