FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E ALS ELE V EN T HC IR C U IT MAY 22 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15104 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5

- 0 0 1 0 9

- C R

- T

- 2 4

- MAP U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f

- A p p e lle e , v ersu s J O E L P . R U B E N , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 22, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J oe l R ube n a ppe al s hi s s e nt e nc e fore m be z z l e m e nta nd e m be z z l e m e ntof V e t e r a ns A dm i ni s tr a t i on ( “ V A ” ) fu nds w hi l e a c t i ng a s a f i duc i a r y , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 6 41 and 3 8 U . S . C . § 1 60 1. O n app ea l , he ar g u es th at h is se nt ence w asB e c aus ewefi ndnoerror ba se d o n th edis tric t c ourt ’s § 3 55 3( a ) analy sis , w ene e d n ot, 1 and do not, re ach theissue of whether there wa s plain error. As for theg overnme nt’s jurisdictional argument, we have jurisdiction to review the re a s o n ab len e s s o f

Rub e n ’ s s e n ten c e , p ur s u an t to 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 7 4 2 . Se eU n ite dSt ate s v . M arti n e z, 434 F.3d 1318 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (re jectingg overnme nt’s threshold arg u m en t that this C ourt lacks jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) to review a sentenc e within a correctly -calculated guideline rang efo r re a so nab le ne ss; c on c ludingthat “ a po st- B oo ker a

pp e al ba se d o n th e‘u nre a so na blene ss’ of a sentence , whether

within or outside the advisory g uidelines rang e, is an ap p ea l asserting that these ntenc ewa s impo se d invio latio n o f l aw p ur su ant to § 37 42(a)( 1) ” ). Pur su ant to ou r w e llestablished prior- prec edent r ule, this panel is bound to apply , and may not rec onsider Martinez. S ee United States v. Marte , 356 F.3d 1336, 1344 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (discussingprior-prece dent rule) . 2 unr e a s ona bl e i n l i ghtof the fa c t ors set for th i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . A f t e rc a r e f ul r e v i e w , w e f

i n d n o e r r o ra n d a f

f i r m. 1 O n M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , R u b e n w a s c h a r g e d i n a t w o - c o u n t in d ic tm e n t w ith e m b e z z le m e n t a n d e m b e z z le m e n t o f V A f u n d s w h ile a c tin g a s a f id u c ia r y fo rh is m othe r , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 6 41 a nd 28 U . S . C . § 1601. H e pl e d gui l t y a nd pr oc e e de d t o s e nt e nc i ng. A cc ordi ng t o t he pres ent ence i nv es t i ga ti o n report(P S I) , R ub en’ s m ot her, B e t t y W e r ne r , be ga n r e c e i vi ng V A D e p en d e nc y a nd I nde m ni t y C om pe ns a t i on ( D I C) i n 1 9 7 6 a f

t e r th e d e a th o f h e r f

i r s t h u s b a n d i n W o r l d W a r I I . I n 1995, W e r n e rw a s p l a c e d i n a n i n s t i tu t i o n d u e t o s e v e r e me n t a l p r o b l e ms , a tw h i c h t i me R u b e n o b ta in e d a d u r a b le p o w e ro f a tto r n e y , p la c in g h im in a f id u c ia r y r e la tio n s h ip w ith h is m o th e r . O v e rth e n e x t e ig h t y e a r s , R u b e n s e n t a p p r o x i m a t e l y te n le tte r s to the V A , a l l of

w hi c h w e r e p ur por t e dl y s i gne d by hi s m othe ra nd di r e c t e d the3

d ep o si tof D IC benefi t s i nt o R ub en’ s var i ou s bank account s. R ub en never used any of thi s m on ey t o m ak e p ay m ent s t o t he fa ci l i t y c ar i ng for hi s m ot her, w ho di ed i n J ul y 2004. S o m e tim e in la t e 2 0 0 3 , th e V A b e g a n a n in v e s tig a tio n in to th e p o s s ib le m i s a ppr opr i a t i on of

W e r ne r ’ s D I C pa y m e n t s. A f t e rpr ovi di ng a s e r i e s of confl i ct i ng expl anat i o n s as t o t he w here abou t s of the D IC paym ent s, R ub en event ual l y a dm i t t ed t hathe had u se d t he m on ey t o p ay off hi s ow n fin an ci al ob l i gat i on s a nd t o car e for hi s i l l so n. H e a l so adm i t t ed t hathe re ce i ved approx i m at el y $8 00 per m on th for near l y t en ye ar s. A cc ordi ng t o V A fin an ci al r e c o r d s , th e to ta l a m o u n t o f m is a p p r o p r ia te d f

u n d s w a s $ 8 6 ,4 0 2 . T h e P S I r e c o m m e n d e d a b a s e o f fe n s e l e v e l o f

6 , u n d e rU. S . S . G § 2B 1. 1( a ) ( 2) , a nd the fol l ow i ng a dj us t m e nt s : ( 1) a n 8- l e ve l e nha nc e m e nt ba s e d on the a m ountof

m one y e m be z zl ed , U . S . S . G . 2B 1. 1( b) ; ( 2) a 2- l e ve l e nha nc e m e nt b e c a u s e h i s m o th e rq u a l i f i e d a s a v u l n e r a b l e v i c t i m wi th i n th e m e a n i n g o f U. S . S . G. § 3 A 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ; ( 3 ) a 2

- le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t fo r v io la tio n o f a p o s itio n o f p r i v a t e t r u s t, pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 3B 1 . 3 ; and ( 4) a 3- l e ve l de c r e a s e forhi s a c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i t y , unde rU . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1( b) . W i th a n a dj us t e d of fe ns e l e ve l of

15 a nd a c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y V I ( ba s e d on 17 c r i m i na l hi s t or y poi nt s r e s ul t i ng f r o m n u m e r o u s p r io rf in a n c ia l c r im e s a n d th e o f fe n s e o f fa l s e ly a c c u s in g h is4

for m e rs t e pda ught e rof c hi l d ne gl e c ta nd a bus e) , R ube n fa c e d a G ui de l i ne s r a nge of 41 -51 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . T here w er e no o bj ec t i on s t o t he P S I. A t the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the di s tr i c t c our t c onf i r m e d tha t the r e w e re no obj ec t i on s t o t he fa ctual basi s or th e ca lcu la t i on s of the P S I a nd then p rovi ded defe ns e c ou ns e l the op po r tun i t y t o a r gu e i n s up po r tof a mi t i ga t i ng s e nt ence . C ou nsel as se rt ed t hatR ub en su ff er ed fr om se vere ph ys i ca l and p sy chol og i ca l pr o b lem s an d hi gh l i gh t ed t hathe w as ca ri ng for avery si ck chi l d. C ou nsel urged th e c o u r t to im p o s e a s e n t e n c e c o n s is tin g o f m a n d a to r y m e n ta l h e a lth tr e a tm e n t, r e s t i tut i on pa y m e nt s , “ s om e t y pe of e m pl oy m e ntc om pe ns a t i on, ” a nd no pr i s on t i m e. T he di stri ctcourti nq ui re d for m ore det ai l s a bo utthese fa cto rs an d sol i ci t ed the fol l ow i n g ad di t i on al fa ct s f rom R ub en and h i s l aw ye r: (1) thathi s s on had ca nceri n t he ey e, bu tdid n o t liv e w i th R ub en w ho had n otpai d chi l d sup po rtsi nce J u n e 2 0 03; a nd ( 2) tha tR ube n s uf fe r e d f r om di a be t e s , hi gh bl ood pr e s s ur e , a nd ca t ar ac t s. T he go vernm entar gu ed for a hi gh -e nd se nt ence . T he di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d tha ti tha d r e vi e w e d the P S I , t o w hi c h the r e w er e no obj ect i on s, and con si dere d t he part i es ’ ar gu m ent s, as w el l as “ the advi sory g ui de l i ne s ” a nd “ 3553, the ne e d forpuni s hm e nt , the pr ot e c t i on of the c om m uni t y, th e o f fe n s e its e lf .” T h e c o u r t th e n c o n c lu d e d th a t in lig h t o f a ll o f its c o n s id e r a tio n s , “a s e n te n c e w ith in th e a d v is o r y g u id e l i n e s i s a n a p p r o p r ia te5

sen t en ce” a nd i m pos e d a 48- m onth t e r m of i m pr i s onm e nt , fol l ow e d by 3 y e a r s of s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e . T he c our t a l s o or de r e d R ube n t o pa y $ 8 6 , 4 0 2 i n r e s t i tut i on. T hi s a ppe a l fol l ow e d. R ub en as se rt s thathi s s ent ence w as un re as on abl e bec ause the di stri ctcourt d i d n o ta d e q u a t e l y c o n s u l ts o m e o f t h e fa c t o r s l i s t e d i n 1 8 U. S . C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . He m akes vari ou s a rgum ent s, so m e th athe ra i se d i n t he di stri ctcourtand o thers that he r a i s e s for t h e fi r s tt i m e he r e , i n s uppor tof m i t i ga t i on. W e a r e unpe r s ua de d by a n y o f th e m . O ur re as on abl enes s r evi ew i s gui ded b y the fa ct ors i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 26 1 (20 05 ); U ni t ed S ta t es v. W i ni ng ea r, 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A n d o u r“[ r ]e v ie w fo rr e a s o n a b le n e s s is de fe r e nt i a l . ” U ni t e d S t at es v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 788 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . “ [ T ] he pa r t y w ho c ha l l e nge s the sen t en ce be a r s the bur de n of e s t a bl i s hi ng tha tthe s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s ona bl e i n the l i g h t o f b o t h th[ e ] r e c or d a nd the fa c t or s i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) . ” I d. T he s e fa c t or s i nc l ude the fol l ow i ng: ( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of fe ns e a nd the hi s t or y a nd c h a r a c te r is tic s o f

th e d e fe n d a n t; (2) the need for the se nt ence i m po se d-- (A ) t o r ef

l ec t the se ri ou snes s of the offe nse, t o prom ote r espect for the l aw , and t o p rovi de j ustpu ni shm entfor the offens e; ( B ) to a f fo r d a d e q u a te d e te r r e n c e to c r im in a l c o n d u c t;6 ( C ) to p r o te c t th e p u b lic f r o m f u r th e rc r im e s o f

th e d e fe n d a n t; a nd ( D ) t o p ro vi de the de fe nda ntw i th ne e de d e duc a t i ona l or vo ca t i on al tra i n in g , m edi ca l ca re , or ot her c orre ct i on al tre at m enti n t he m ostef fe ct i ve m anner; (3) the ki nd s of s ent ence s a vai l abl e;

. . . . (7) the need t o p rovi de re st i tut i on t o any vi ct i m s of the offens e. 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). A l th o u g h sen t en ci n g co u rt s m u stb e g u i d ed b y th ese factors,

“ no thi ng i n B oo ker or el se w here re qu i re s the di stri ct court t o s t at e o n th e record tha ti tha s e xpl i c i t l y c ons i de r e d e a c h of the § 3553( a) fact or s ort o di s c us s e a c h of the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. S cot t , 42 6 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 29 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ; U n i t e d S ta te s v . R o b le s , 4 0 8 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( s ta tin g th a t, po st -B oo ker, di stri ctcourt s nee d n otcond uct an ac coun t i ng of every § 3 55 3(a) fa c to ra n d e x p o u n d o n h o w e a c h fa c to rp la y e d a r o le in th e s e n te n c in g d e c is io n ) . B a s e d on ourc a r e f

ul r e vi e w , w i th pa r t i c ul ar a t t e nt i on t o the s e nt e nc i ng tra nscr i ptand t he P S I, w e r ea di l y c on cl ud e thatR ub en’ s s ent ence i s r ea sonabl e. T h e d i s tr i c tc o u r te x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d th a ti th a d c o n s u l t e d § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) p r i o rt o i mp o s i ng a s ent ence thatfe l l w i thi n t he advi so ry G u idel i nes r ange. C f. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d at 78 8 (ob se rvi ng that“ w hen t he di stri ctcourti m po se s ase n ten ce w ithi n t he advi sory G ui del i nes r ange, w e ordi nari l y w i l l expectthatchoi ce t o b e a re ason abl e one”).7

B efore a nn ou nc in g i t s s ent ence , the courthear d R ub en’ s a rgum ent s, w hi ch pe r t a i ne d t o “ the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t an ces o f the of fe ns e a nd the hi s t or y a nd char ac t er i st i cs of t he defendant , ” w i thi n t he m ea ni ng of § 3 55 3( a) (1 ), since they concerned R ub en’ s i l l son, hi s ow n m edi ca l concerns, and h i s re m o rs e a nd desi re for r ehabi l i t at i on . M oreover, i n i m po si ng se nt ence , the di stri ctcourthi gh l i gh t ed R u b e n ’s lo n g h is to r y o f e c o n o m ic c r im e a n d th e n a tu r e o f th e o f fe n s e a n d its vi ct i m . S ee § 355 3(a) (2) (di sc ussi ng fa ct ors pert ai ni ng t o nee d for se n te nce i m p o s e d “ t o r e f

l e c tth e s e r i o u s n e s s o f

th e o f fe n s e , t o p r o m o t e r e s p e c tfo rth e l a w, and t o p rovi de j ustpu ni shm entfor the offens e” and “ t o afford adequ at e det er re nce t o c r i m i na l c onduc t ” and “ t o pr ot e c tthe publ i c f r om f ur the rc r i m e s of

the defe nd ant ”) . F i nal l y, the part i es ’ ar gu m ent s a nd the P S I’ s c al cul at i on s out l i ned

“ the ki nds of

s e nt e nc e s a va i l a bl e , ” a s di s c us s e d i n § 3553( a ) ( 3) . O n thi s reco r d, R u b e n ’s s e n te n c e w a s r e a s o n a b le . AF F I RME D.