FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 1, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 14 31 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-2 01 90 -ASG-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 Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CARLTON AUGUSTUS BROW N, a.k .a. Co rtn ey

Esco ffery , a.k .a. Kend ric k B ern ardFu ll er, a.k .a. W in st onTho m

ps on , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 1, 2 01 1) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Carl to n Au gu stus Bro wn ap pe al s h is 57 -m on th be lo w-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e

im po se d fo ll owi ng hi s co nv ic ti on foril le ga ll y re-e nt eri ng th e Uni te d S ta te s af te r co nv ic ti on of a n a gg rav at edfel on y , invi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6( a) an d (b )(2 ). On ap pe al , he r ai se s v ari ou s ar gu m en ts ch al le ng in g t he subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s of hi s s en te nc e. Afte r car efu l re vi ew, we affi rm . I. Bro wn ar gu es th atth e ap pl ic at io n o f th e U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(A)(i )’s 16 -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r hi s 1 98 7 dru g o ffen se res ul ts inanun reas on ab le se nt en ce b ecau se th e en hanc em en t d oubl e-co un ts th e 1 98 7 c on vi ct io n b y us in g i t to in crea se bo th hi s cr im in al hi st ory sco re an d o ffen se lev el , whi chun de rm in es th e pu rp os es of § 35 53 (a). W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n a ndin te rp ret at io n o f th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es . Uni te d Sta tes v. Wilk s , 46 4 F .3d12 40 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f se nt en ces im po se d und er the advi so ry Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es un de r anab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 5 97 (20 07 ). A di st ric t co urt ab us es it s di sc ret io n wh enitfai ls to affo rdco ns id erat io n t o re le va ntfact or s tha t wer e due si gn ifi can t wei gh t, g iv es si gn ifi can t wei gh t t o an i m pr op er o r irrel ev an t fa ct or , or co m m it s a c le ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n c on si de rin g t he pro pe r fac to rs , su chas

2ba la nc in g t he fact or s u nr eas on ab ly. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 89

(1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) , cer t. d

en ie d , 13 1 S . Ct. 1 81 3 (2 01 1) . Reas on ab le ne ss rev ie w is de fere nt ia l, an d t he bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g u nr eas on ab le ne ss li es with t he pa rty ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Whe n re vi ewin g asen te nc e fo r subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s, we ev al ua te whe th er the sen te nc e im

po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt fa il s t o a ch ie ve th e p ur po se s o f se nt en ci ng un de r § 3 55 3( a). Id . A defen da nt ’s per so na l d is ag reem en t wi th th e di st ric t co urt’s as se ss m en t o f on e o r m or e o f th e fac to rs wil l n otbe a su ffi ci en t reas onto va cat e as un reas on ab le a di st ric t co urt’s ca refu l co ns id erat io n o f th e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Va ln or , 45 1 F .3d74 4, 7 52 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). The Sen te nc in g C omm is si on in te nd edpri orfel on y co nv ic ti on s t o c ou ntin de te rm in in g b ot h t he cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory an d t he off

en se lev el un de r § 2 L1.2 . Se e U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 co m m en t. (n .6) ( “ A con vi ct io n t ak enin to acco un t un de r subs ect io n (b )(1 ) is no t ex cl ud edfro m co ns id erat io n o f whe th er tha t co nv ic ti on rece iv es cri min al hi st ory po in ts . . .”). W e h av e h el d tha t the two gu id el in es pro vi si on s s erv e d iff eren t p ur po se s wi th th e cri min al hi st ory cat eg ory se rv in g “ to pu ni sh li ke ly recid iv is ts m or e se ve rel y ,” an d § 2L1 .2(b )(1 )(A) s erv in g 3“ to de te r al ie ns who ha ve be enco nv ic te d o f a fel on y fro m re-e nt eri ng th e Uni te d St at es .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ad el eke , 96 8 F .2d11 59 , 11 61 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (em ph as is om it te d) . Here, b ot h o f th es e p ur

po se s ar e se rv edby the di st ric t co urt’s u si ng th e 19 87 dru g t raff

ic ki ng co nv ic ti on to cal cu la te Bro wn’s cr im in al hi st ory an d h is of fen se lev el . Bro wn co m

m it te d s ev eral dru g o ffen se s an d h as be ende po rte d twi ce al read y . As a res ul t, the di st ric t co urt’s u se of B ro wn’s dru g t raff ic ki ng co nv ic ti on to co m

pu te hi s cr im in al hi st ory

sco re an d h is off

en se lev el di d n ot ren de r hi s s en te nc e subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le . II. Bro wn n ex t ar gu es th atbe cau se th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a d oe s n ot ha ve a fas t-t rackpro gr am , hi s h ig he r se nt en ce cr eat edanun warra nt edsen te nc in g di sp ari ty betweenhi m

an d s im il arl y

si tu at edde fen da nt s i n fa st -tr ackjuri sd ic ti on s, whi chren de rs hi s s en te nc e subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . Und er o urpri orpre ced en t ru le , we are b ou ndto fol lo w a pr io r bi nd in g pr eced en t, “ un le ss an d u nt il itis ov erru le d b y th is co urt en ba nc or b y

th e Supr em e Co urt.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 34 2 F .3d12 45 , 12 46 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). In Uni te d St at es v. Ca stro , 45 5 F .3d12 49 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ), we he ldth at“ se ct io n 3 55 3( a)(6 ) do es no t re qu ire th e d is tri ctco urt t o d ep artba se d o n the av ai labi li ty of th e [fa st 4tra ck ] de partu re i n o nl y so m e d is tri ct s.” Id. at 1 25 3; se e a ls o Un it ed Stat es v. Llan os -Ago st ader o , 48 6 F .3d11 94 , 11 99 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (h ol di ng th at“ a se nt en ci ng co urt m ay no t co ns id er fa st -tr ackdi sp ari ti es when im po si ng se nt en ce.”) . Fol lo win g Ki mbr ou gh , we hel d “ th at Ki mbr ou gh di d n otov erru le Ca stro or i ts pro ge ny.” Vega- Ca st il lo , 54 0 F .3dat 1 23 8. We furt he r he ldth at di st ric t co urts are p ro hi bi te d fr om co ns id eri ng di sp ari ti es crea te d b y fas t-t rack pr og ram s i n d eci di ng whet he r to im po se a do wnwar d v ari an ce. Vega- Ca st il lo , 54 0 F .3dat 1 23 8- 39 . Set tl edlaw i n t hi s C irc ui t fo recl os es Bro wn’s ar gu m en t tha t the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e co ns id eredsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s b etweenfas t-t rackan d no n- fas t-t rackdi st ric ts when itim po se d h is sen te nc e. Thu s, co ns is te ntwith Vega- Ca st il lo , th e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d n o e rro r in no t co ns id eri ng th e se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty betweenfas t-t rackan d n on -fas t-t rackdi st ric ts , whenit im pl ic it ly decl in edBro wn’s re qu es t t o i m po se a be lo w-g ui de li ne sen te nc e b as ed up on th is di sp ari ty. III. Fi na ll y , Bro wn co nt en ds th atbe cau se hi s 5 7- m on th sen te nc e was gre at er th anne ces sa ry

to ful fil l the pu rp os es of § 35 53 (a), h is sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . Spe ci fic al ly, Bro wn co nt en ds th atbe cau se he is anil le ga l al ie n a s 5op po se d t o asi m il arl y si tu at edAm eri can cit iz en , he wi ll be in carc erat edlo ng er, wil l b e subjec t t o s tri ct er co nf in em en t co nd it io ns , andwil l b e in el ig ib le to pa rti ci pa te incert ai n p ro gr am s, wh ic h re nd ers hi s s en te nc e unr eas on ab le . Bro wn h as fai le d t o d em on st rat e th athi s 5 7- m on th be lo w-g ui de li ne s se nt en ce i s o th erwi se un reas on ab le . Becau se di st ric t co urts are g iv endu e de fere nc e in ass es si ng th e st atut ory fact or s, Br own ’s op in io n t ha t the di st ric t co urt sh ou ldha ve gi ve n m or e wei gh t t o h is il le ga l al ie n s ta tu s i s n ota su ffi ci en t re as on to rem an d g iv enth e d is tri ctco urt’s re as on edan al y si s. AFFIRMED. 1

Br own’s re quest for or al argument is denied. 1 6