FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 25, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 37 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :9 1- cr-0 01 37 -PCF -GJK- 1

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 Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, vers us NELSON DAL E RICKS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 25 , 20 12 ) Befo re PRYOR, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Nels on Dale Ric ks ap pe al s h is for ty-eig ht -m on th , wit hi n- ran ge sen te nc e,

im po se d fo ll owi ng th e rev oc at io n o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e. He arg ue s tha t t he se nt en ce was bo th pro cedur al ly andsubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . W e aff

irm. Inrev ie win g asen te nc e, we m us t fi rs t d et erm in e whe th er t he di st ric t co urt co m m it te d a ny pro cedur al erro r. Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 , 12 8 S . Ct. 58 6, 5 97 (20 07 ). A di st ric t co urt co m m it s a p ro cedur al erro r if , for in st an ce, i t fai ls to co ns id er al l o f th e fac to rs li st edin 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). See id . If th e di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on is pro cedur al ly reaso nabl e, th e an al y si s turns to th e subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f th e se nt en ce. Id . Our rev ie w, in th is reg ard , is hi gh ly defer en ti al . Id. “ W e m ay no t . . . setasi de a se nt en ce m erel y be cau se we wou ldha ve de ci de d t ha t an ot he r on e is m or e ap pr op ria te .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Irey, 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (en ba nc ). W e wil l v acat e a s en te nc e o nl y

“ if we are l eftwit h t he de fin it e 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 erro r of

jud gm en t i n wei gh in g t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s.” Un it ed St at es v. Pu gh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Ri ck s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt re li edon on ly one fact orin fas hi on in g hi s s en te nc e—h is cri m in al hi st ory . Ri ck s t hu s ap pe ars to arg ue th atth e d is tri ct co urt fa il edto co ns id er al l o f th e fac to rs li st edin Sect io n 3 55 3( a). W e are no t pe rs ua de d b y

th is arg um en t. We hav e h el d t ha t a d is tri ctco urt i s n otrequi redto 2“ st at e o n t he reco rdth atitha s ex pl ic it ly con si de redeach of t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s

ordi sc us s ea chof t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s.” Un it edSta te s v . Sco tt , 42 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). An ac kn owl ed gm en t t ha t t he di st ric t co urt co ns id eredth e Sect io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s i s s uf fic ie nt . Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 86 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Here, th e d is tri ctco urt ex pr es sl y st at edth at“ itha s co ns id ered th e fac to rs setfor th ” in Sect io n 3 55 3( a). Itals o d is cu ss edin m or e d et ai l s om e o f th os e fac to rs . The di st ric t co urt’s s en te nc in g d eci si on was t hu s p ro cedur al ly reas on ab le . W e al so can no t s ay

th atth e se nt en ce i m

po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt was subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . The t erm

of f orty-eig htm on th s i m

pr is on m en t was wit hi n t he gu id el in es ran ge . Alth ou gh we do no t p res um e a s en te nc e wit hi n t he gu id el in es ran ge to be reas on ab le , we ord in ari ly exp ectsu ch a se nt en ce t o b e reas on ab le . Uni te d S ta te s v . Hun t, 5 26 F.3d73 9, 7 46 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Ric ks arg ue s t ha t t he sen te nc e m us t n on et he le ss be va cat edin li gh t o f hi s t es ti m on y ab ou t the lo ss of h is so n a ndhi s s is te r’s ne edfora ki dn ey tra ns pl an t. The di stric t co urt n ot ed , ho wev er, t ha t Ri ck s h as a si gn ifi can t an d l en gt hy cri m in al hi st ory . The di st ric t co urt o bs erv edth aton e o f th e o ffen se s fo r whi ch hi s supe rv is edrel eas e was rev ok ed —t he co m

m is si on of a n a gg rav at edass au ltwit h a de ad ly w eap on—was ser io us . The di st ric t co urt ex pr es se d c on cern ab ou t 3de te rren ce an d p ub li c sa fet y . It o bs erv edth atth e co m m is si on of t he ag gr av at ed as saul t, wh ic h o ccu rredab ou t s ev en m on th s i nt o R ic ks ’s term of s up erv is ed rel eas e, in di cat edth athe was “ no t am en ab le to supe rv is io n.” Taki ng all of t hi s in to acco un t, we ca nn otsay tha t t he reco rdlea ve s u s 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 erro r of

jud gm en t i n wei gh in g th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s.” Pu gh , 51 5 F .3dat 1 19 1 (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Ri ck s’s s en te nc e m

us t t he refo re b e aff

irmed. AFFIRMED.

4