FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DEC 10, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 12 71 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cr-1 40 18 -KMM -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, vers us RICHAR D NOEL QUEZADA , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defend an t-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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 10 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, HU LL andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: App el la ntRic ha rdNoel Quez ad a p le d g ui lt y to two co un ts of afiv e-co un t in di ct m en t ch arg in g h im

with b rin gi ng fiv e al ie ns in to th e Uni te d S ta te s i nvi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 4( a)(2 )(B) (ii ), an d t he di st ric t co urt s en te nc edhi m to co nc urren t p ris on term s o f 84 m on th s. He n ow ap pe al s h is sen te nc es , arg ui ng th at hi s s en te nc e are bo th pro cedur al ly andsubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . App el la nt co nt en ds th atth e se nt en ces are p ro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ct co urt i m pr op erl y co ns id eredhi s p rio r arre st s an d fa il edto pro vi de a “ m or e 1 si gn ifi can t ju st ifi cat io n” forit s upwa rdvaria nc e fro m th e p res cri be d Gu id el in es se nt en ci ng ran ge . App el la ntco nt en ds th athi s s en te nc es are s ub st an ti ve ly un reas on ab le be cau se (1) th e d is tri ctco urt o ve rem ph as iz edhi s cr im in al hi st ory wit ho utgi vi ng du e wei gh t t o t he “ na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se ,” th ereb y crea ti ng a “ subs ta nt ia l d is pa rit y ” b etween hi s s en te nc es an d t he th os e im po se d i n t y

pi cal ali en -s m

ug gl in g c as es ; (2 ) th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d n otha ve co ns id eredsp eci fic de te rren ce an d i nc ap aci ta ti on as s en te nc in g o bjec ti ve s g iv en th atth is was app el la nt ’s firs t o ffen se in vo lv in g t he sm ug gl in g o f al ie ns ; an d (3 ) U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.1 , § 4 A1.3 , andth e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ’s rel ev an t p ol ic y st at em en ts . all co un se le d a ga in stanup wardvaria nc e. Our“ subs ta nt iv e rev ie w of s en te nc es is de fere nt ia l” an d “ on ly loo k[ s] to see if t he di stric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y co m m it ti ng a cl ear e rro r in jud gm en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 65 (11 thCir . 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ). Rev ie w for Appellant’s pr ior arr ests did not result in the filing of c riminal char g es ag ainst him. 1 2ab us e o f di sc ret io n app li es to all sen te nc es , eve n v ari an ces ou ts id e th e Gui de li ne s

se nt en ci ng ran ge . Id
. at 1 18 6 (c it in g Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 6, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 5 94 , 16 9 L.Ed .2d44 5 (2 00 7) ). The p art y who ch al le ng es a se nt en ce, he re the de fen da nt , “be ars th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce i s un reas on ab le in li gh t o f bo th th e rec or d a ndth e fac to rs in [18 U.S.C. §] se ct io n 3 55 3( a).” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta te , 58 6 F .3d93 6, 9 47 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (al te rat io ns an d c it at io n re m ov ed ). A sen te nc e m ay

be pro cedur al ly or subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . Gal l, 55 2 U.S. at 5 1, 1 28 S.Ct . at 5 97 . A sen te nc e m ay be pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le if t he di st ric t co urt (1 ) im

pr op erl y cal cu la te s t he gu id el in e ran ge , (2) tre at s t he Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , (3) fai ls to co ns id er the ap pr op ria te § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, (4 ) se le ct s a s en te nc e b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r (5 ) fai ls to ad equa te ly ex pl ai n t he ch os ensen te nc e, in cl ud in g a n e xp lana ti on foran y de vi at io n fr om

th e gu id el in e ran ge . Id
. In r ev ie win g t he subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e, we co ns id er “ th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces an d . . . whet he r th e se nt en ce ach ie ve s t he sen te nc in g p ur po se s s ta te d i n § 35 53 (a).” Uni te d Sta tes v. S ar ra s , 57 5 F .3d11 91 , 12 19 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). A sen te nc e m ay be subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le wher e a d is tri ctco urt “ un jus ti fiabl y

rel ie d o n a ny on e § 35 53 (a) fact or , fai le d t o c on si de r pe rti ne nt§ 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, s el ect edth e se nt en ce 3arb it rari ly, orba se d t he sen te nc e o n i m pe rm is si bl e fac to rs .” Id

. Neve rth el es s, the di st ric t co urt “ is pe rm it te d t o a tt ach gre atweig htto on e fac to r ov er o th ers .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Sh aw , 56 0 F .3d12 30 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ci ta ti on an d i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Alth ou gh th e d is tri ctco urt m us t p ro vi de “ su ffi ci en tl y co m pe ll in g” jus ti fic at io ns to supp ort a s en te nc e th atvarie s fr om th e Gui de li ne s se nt en ci ng ran ge , we wil l n otpre su m e th ata se nt en ce o ut si de th e ran ge is un reas on ab le . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma te os , No. 0 8- 17 17 8, s li p o p. 1 27 , 14 3 (1 1t h C ir. Oct. 1 9, 2 01 0) (qu ot in g Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at50 , 12 8 S .Ct. at59 7) . Fi na ll y , alt ho ug h “ th e d is tri ctco urt i s re qu ire d ‘to av oi d u nwa rran te d se nt en ce d is pa rit ie s among de fen da nt s wi th si m il ar re co rd s wh o h av e b een fou nd gu il ty of si m il ar co nduc t . . . ,’ ” Uni te d Sta tes v. S po erke , 56 8 F .3d12 36 , 12 52 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (qu ot in g 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 6) ), “ [a] well -fo un de d c la im of di sp ari ty . . . ass um es th atap pl es are b ei ng co m pa redto ap pl es .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Doc amp o , 57 3 F .3d10 91 , 11 02 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . App el la nt ’s sen te nc es are p ro cedur al ly reaso nabl e b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt pr op erl y cal cu la te d t he Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng e, tr eat edth e Gui de li ne s as advi so ry , con si de redth e ap pr op ria te § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, ad equa te ly exp la in edit s reas on s fo r th e se nt en ces , anddi d n oterr i n c on si de rin g app el lant ’s pri orarre st s. App el la nt ’s sen te nc es are s ub st an ti ve ly reaso nabl e b ecau se di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly 4em

ph as iz edth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s o f “ th e h is to ry an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e de fen da nt [,]” the ne edfor th e se nt en ce “ to pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w[,]” andth e ne edfor th e se nt en ce “ to affo rdad equa te de te rren ce t o c riminal co nduc t[.]” Fu rth erm or e, Que zad a’s se nt en ce d idno t cr eat e an un warra nt eddi sp ari ty am on g si m il arl y -s itua te d d efen da nt s, an d t he di st ric t co urt d idno t d ep artup wardpu rs uant to th e Gui de li ne s, b utva rie d upwa rd s p ur su an t t o ‘§ 3 55 3( a). AFFIR MED.

5