FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DEC 29, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 11 40 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 05 14 -SDM- TGW -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MARIO LOPEZ-DIAZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 29 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Mar io Lop ez-Di az ap pe al s h is 30 -m on th sen te nc e im po se d a fte r he wasco nv ic te d o f be in g fo un d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s af te r de po rta ti on , 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a) an d (b )(1 ). On ap pe al , Lop ez-Di az co nt en ds th athi s s en te nc e is un reas on ab le be cau se di st ric t co urts inth is cir cu itha ve anun warrant edten de nc y to im po se ab ov e-g ui de li ne sen te nc es incri m in al imm ig rat io n c as es when co m pa redwith di st ric t co urts inot he r ci rcu it s. Nex t, Lo pe z-Di az ar gu es th athi s s en te nc e is pr oc edur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t p ro vi de anad equa te ex pl an at io n fo r it s d eci si on to im po se anab ov e-g ui de li ne sen te nc e. Fin al ly, Lop ez-Di az as se rts th athi s s en te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Fo r th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we affi rm . I. Lop ez-Di az p le d g ui lty

to on e co un t o f be in g fo un d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s aft er d ep orta ti on , invi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6( a) an d (b )(1 ). Acco rd in g t o t he pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( “ PSI” ), Lop ez-Di az i s a n at iv e an d c it iz enof Mex ic o wh o fi rs t en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s i ll eg al ly in 1 99 7. InJu ly 200 0, Lop ez-Di az was de po rte d t o M ex ic o, b uthe re-e nt eredth e Uni te d S ta te s i n Nov em be r 20 04 . In Jul y

20 07 , Lop ez-Di az was co nv ic te d o f be in g fo un d i n t he Uni te d S tate s fo ll owi ng de po rta ti on , andwas s en te nc edto ni ne m on th s i n fe de ral pr is on . Fol lo win g h is rel eas e in Nov em be r 20 07 , he was de po rte d t o M ex ic o. In Octo be r 20 09 , Lop ez-Di az was arre st edinLake la nd , Flo rid a, fo r dr iv in g wi th ou t a 2li cen se . Im

m ig rat io n a ndCu st om s En fo rcem en t fi le d ade ta in er ag ai ns t Lop ez-Di az af

te r de te rm in in g tha t h e h adno t re cei ve d p erm is si on to re-e nt er o r rem ai n i n t he Uni te d S ta te s. The di stric t co urt d et erm in edth atLop ez-Di az h ada gu id el in e ran ge of 1 5 t o 21 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Lop ez-Di az ar gu edth athi s was a “ typic al cas e” tha t cal le d fo r a s en te nc e wit hi n t he gu id el in e ran ge . The g ov ern m en t re sp on de d t ha t Lop ez-Di az’s ca se was n ottypic al be cau se he ha d apri orco nv ic ti on for il le ga l reen try andals o h adbe enarre st edm ul ti pl e ti m es si nc e th e ag e o f 21 . The go ve rn m en t o bs erv edth atLop ez-Di az’s n in e-m on thsen te nc e fo r hi s p rio r il le ga l reen try con vi ct io n d idno t re su ltinan y ob se rv ab le di ffer en ce i n h is be ha vi or . The di stric t co urt i m

po se d a n upwa rdva ria nc e an d s en te nc edLop ez-Di az t o a te rm of 3 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Inex pl ai ni ng th e rea so ns forit s s en te nc e, th e co urt o bs erv edth atLop ez-Di az was “ co m pi li ng a fo rm id ab le reco rdof b eh av io r th atis he ed le ss of t he ex is te nc e an d p art ic ul ars of the law.” Th e co urt n ot edth at Lop ez-Di az h adpro m

pt ly reent eredth e Uni te d S ta te s d es pi te hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on fo r il le ga l re en try. T he refo re, the co urt b el ie ve d t ha t i t was “ ne ces sary to esc al at e th e se nt en ce m at eri al ly from th atep is od e an d t o a cco un t fo r hi s re pe at eddi sr eg ard fo r th e la w.” The co urt s ta te d t ha t i t h adgi ve n p art ic ul ar wei gh t t o t he ne edfor de te rren ce. The co urt n ot edth atil le ga l re en try “ is li nk edsi gn ifi can tl y to th e 3qu es ti on of d et erre nc e si nc e th ere a re p erce iv edbe ne fit s t o an i nd iv idua l’s

un lawfu l en try int o t he Uni te d S ta te s.” Th e co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t i t was im po si ng a le ng th y sen te nc e to sh ow Lo pe z-Di az “ th atth ere i s an esc al at in g c os t” for il le ga ll y reen te rin g t he co un try “ an d t ha t i t i s a c os t n otwort h h is in cu rri ng .” Lop ez-Di az ob jecte d t o h is sen te nc e as be in g u nr eas on ab le . II. W e rev ie w a se nt en ce i m po se d b y a di st ric t co urt fo r rea so nabl en es s, u si ng anab us e-o f-d is cret io n s tand ard . Uni te d Sta tes v. Li ves ay , 58 7 F .3d12 74 , 12 78 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . W e fo ll ow a t wo- st ep pro ces s i n re vi ewin g asen te nc e. Fir st , we m us t en sure tha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t co m m ita si gn ifi can t p ro cedur al erro r. Gal l v. Un it ed

Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 , 59 7, 1 69 L.Ed.2d44 5 (2 00 7) . If th e d is tri ctco urt’s s en te nc in g d eci si on is pro cedur al ly sou nd , we m us t th ende te rm in e whe th er the sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Id. at 5 1, 1 28 S.Ct . at 5 97 . The § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s in cl ud e: (1) th e n atur e an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se an d t he hi st ory

an d ch arac te ris ti cs of t he de fen da nt ; (2 ) th e n eedto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of the of fen se , to pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, andto pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e of fen se ; (3 ) th e n eedfor

de te rren ce; (4) th e n eedto pro te ctth e p ub li c; (5) th e n eed to pro vi de th e d efen da ntwith n eed ededuc at io na l o r vo cat io na l trai ni ng or m ed ic al 4care ; (6 ) th e k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e; (7) th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ran ge ; (8 )

pe rti ne ntpo li cy

st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ; (9 ) th e n eedto av oi d un wan te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s; an d (1 0) th e n eedto pro vi de res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). A sen te nc e is subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le if i t fa il s t o re fle ct“ th e n eedto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc e d is pa rit ie s among de fen dant s wi th si m il ar re co rd s who ha ve be enfou ndgu il ty of si m il ar co nduc t.” Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(6 ). To es tabl is h t ha t a s en te nc in g d is pa rit y ex is ts , th e d efen dantm

us t s ho w th athe is si mil arl y si tu at edto ot he r de fen da nt s wh o h av e rec ei ve d l owe r se nt en ces . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. S

po erke , 56 8 F .3d12 36 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (fi nd in g n o un warrant edsen te nc in g d is pa rit y wher e two de fen da nt s wer e n otsi m il arl y si tu at ed ). The d efen da ntm us t d o m or e th anpre se nt“ba re num be rs witho ut co nt ex t.” Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. C amp be ll , 49 1 F .3d13 06 , 13 17 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (h ol di ng th atde fen dant ’s st at is ti cal ev id en ce tha t h is sen te nc e ex ceed edth e av erag e se nt en ces im

po se d o n o th ers co nv ic te d o f si m il ar o ffen se s d idno t de m on st rat e th atth e d efen da nt ’s ownsen te nc e was un reas on ab le ). Inth is cas e, th e st at is ti cs cit edby L op ez-Di az d o n otsh ow tha t h is sen te nc e is un reas on ab le . Firs t, al th ou gh di st ric t co urts inth e Ele ve nth C irc ui t m ay ha ve im po se d ahi gh er p erce nt ag e o f ab ov e-g ui de li ne sen te nc es inimm ig rat io n c as es 5th anco urts inso m e o th er ci rcu it s dur in g 2 00 9, the ov eral l n um be r of ab ov e-g ui de li ne sen te nc es was re la ti ve ly sm al l. Ou t o f a t ot al of 1 ,25 6 imm ig rat io n c on vi ct io ns inth is cir cu it , on ly 34 d efen dant s re cei ve d ab ov e-g ui de li ne sen te nc es . In the Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a, co urts on ly im po se d 9 abo ve -g ui de li ne sen te nc es ou t o f a t ot al of 3 78 imm ig rat io n c as es . Thu s, the se st at is ti cs do no t d em on st rat e th atdi st ric t co urts inth e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t g en eral ly, orth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a in pa rti cu la r, are b ia se d a ga in stimm ig rat io n de fen da nt s o r ha ve anun warrant edten de nc y to im po se up wardva rianc es in imm ig rat io n c as es . Mo re g en eral ly, Lop ez-Di az ca nn otrel y on th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ’s st at is ti cs to sh ow tha t anup wardva ria nc e was un warrant edinhi s ca se be cau se th os e st at is ti cs do no t ac co un t fo r th e fac ts an d c irc um st an ces of e ach in di vi du al cas e. Se e Ca mpb el l , 49 1 F .3dat 1 31 7. Lo pe z-Di az h as no t p res en te d a ny in fo rm at io n s ho win g t ha t d efen da nt s wh o, l ik e h im , hav e p rio r co nv ic ti on s fo r il le ga l re en try ten d t o re cei ve lo wer s en te nc es inot he r ci rcu it s. Acco rd in gl y , Lop ez-Di az’s s ta ti st ic al ev id en ce d oe s n otest ab li sh th athi s s en te nc e is un reas on ab le . III. As n ot edab ov e, we rev ie w a se nt en ce i m po se d b y a di st ric t co urt fo r 6reas on ab le ne ss un de r anab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Li ves ay , 58 7 F .3dat 1 27 8.

The ab us e o f di sc ret io n s tand ard“ al lo ws a ra ng e o f ch oi ce fo r th e d is tri ctco urt, s o lo ng as t ha t ch oi ce d oe s n otco ns ti tu te a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ). A sen te nc e is pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le if the di stric t co urt fa il s t o o ffer ad equa te reas on s fo r it s s en te nc in g d eci si on . Gal l, 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S . Ct. at 59 7. Th e le ve l o f ex pl an at io n re qu ire d o f th e d is tri ctco urt v ari es fro m cas e to cas e. Rita v . Uni te d Sta tes , 55 1 U.S. 3 38 , 35 6, 1 27 S.Ct . 24 56 , 24 68 , 16 8 L.Ed .2d 20 3 (2 00 7) . A deci si on to im po se a se nt en ce wi th inth e g ui de li ne ran ge “wil l n ot ne ces sa ril y

requi re l en gt hy exp la na ti on ,” bu t wh enth e co urt i m po se s a s en te nc e ou ts id e th e g ui de li ne ran ge , itsh ou ldid en ti fy th e rea so ns why itha s d on e so . Id. at35 6- 57 , 12 7 S .Ct. at24 68 . “ The sen te nc in g ju dg e sh ou ldsetforth en ou gh to sa ti sf y th e ap pe ll at e co urt tha 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 l eg al de ci si on m ak in g aut ho rit y .” Id. at 3 56 , 12 7 S .Ct. at24 68 . In co ns id eri ng th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, the di st ric t co urt m ay rel y up on fact s tha t h av e al ready be enacco un te d fo r in th e d efen da nt ’s gu id el in e ran ge . Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 52 6 F .3d13 12 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e wil l n otrev ers e a s en te nc e as subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le un le ss we are

“ 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 7erro 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 at li 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.” Ir ey , 61 2 F .3dat 1 19 0 (quo ta ti onom it te d) . The p arty ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e h as th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atitis un reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). In de te rm in in g wh ethe r a v ari an ce fr om th e g ui de li ne ran ge is reas on ab le , we m us t ex am in e whe th er “ th e jus ti fic at io n fo r th e v ari an ce [i s] ‘ su ffi ci en tl y co m pe ll in g t o supp ort the de gr ee o f th e v ari an ce.’” Ir ey , 61 2 F .3dat 1 18 6- 87 (qu ot in g Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at 5 0, 1 28 S.Ct . at 5 97 ). Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt ad equa te ly exp la in edit s d eci si onto im po se an up wardva ria nc e. The c ou rt s ta te d t ha t an ab ov e-g ui de li ne sen te nc e was ne ed edin li gh t o f Lop ez-Di az’s cri m in al hi st ory , in cl ud in g h is pri orco nv ic ti on foril le ga l reen try, andth e n eedto de te r Lop ez-Di az fr om co m m it ti ng futur e imm ig rat io n of fen se s. Alt ho ug h Lo pe z-Di az’s p rio r il le ga l re en try con vi ct io n was acco un te d fo r in hi s g ui de li ne ran ge , th e d is tri ctco urt co ul d c on si de r th atco nv ic ti on init s an al y si s o f th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s as well . Se e W il li ams , 52 6 F .3dat 1 32 4. Si m il arl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err by tak in g t he rece nc y of Lo pe z-Di az’s p rio r co nv ic ti on in to acco un t b ecau se th atfactwas re le va ntto th e n atur e an d ci rcu m st an ces of the off

en se , Lop ez-Di az’s p ers on al hi st ory an d c ha ract eri st ic s, 8an d t he ne edforde te rren ce.

Lop ez-Di az’s s en te nc e al so is subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le . Sin ce Lo pe z-Di az ha d apri orco nv ic ti on foril le ga l re en try, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n c on cl ud in g t ha t an ab ov e-g ui de li ne sen te nc e was ne ed edto acco un t fo r Lop ez-Di az’s rec id iv is m an d t o d et er h im

fro m re-e nt eri ng th e Uni te d S ta te s il le ga ll y inth e fu tu re. Not ab ly, Lop ez-Di az’s s en te nc e is well be lo w th e st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e o f te n years’ im pr is on m en t. Se e 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (b )(1 ). Bec au se a 30 -m on thsen te nc e d idno t fa ll ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le se nt en ces fro m

whi chth e d is tri ctco urt co ul d c ho os e, Lop ez-Di az’s s en te nc e is subs tant iv el y

reas on ab le . Se e Ir ey , 61 2 F .3dat 1 18 9. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

9