[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 14117 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:19

- cr - 00087

- TPB

- MRM

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus SALVADOR AGUILAR

- GIL, a.k. a. Salvador Aguilar, a.k.a. Pedro Aguilar, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Flo rida

________________________ ( July 2, 2020 ) Before JILL PRYOR , BRANCH and LAGOA , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 19-14117 Date Filed: 07/02/2020 Page: 1 of 72 Salvador Aguilar

- Gil appeals his within

- guidelines 34

- month 1 prison
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after being deported and con victed of a felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1)

. Aguilar

Gil did not object to the sentence during the district court proceedings. On appeal, h e argues that his sentence is (1) procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to state in open court the reasons for imposing its sentence as required under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) (1) 2 and (2) substantively unreasonable because the district court improperly weighed the § 3553( a) factors

. 3 We address each

1 Aguilar

- Gil’s applicable advisory guideline range was 30 to 37 months’ imprisonment. He faced a statutory maximum of ten years’ imprisonment.

2 Section 3553 (c)(1) provides that: The court, at the time of sentencing, shall state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence, and, if the sentence

— (1) is of the kind, and within the [Sentencing Guidelines] range, described in subsection (a)(4), and that range exceeds 24 months, the reason for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the range

. 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (c)(1). The parties do not dispute that § 3553(c)(1) applies here.

3 Section 3553(a) man dates that the district court “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to: (1) “ reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense ” ; (2) “ afford adequate deterrence t o criminal conduct ” ; (3) “ protect the public from further crimes of the defendant ” ; and (4) “ provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner [

. ]” 18 U.S.C. § 3 553(a)(2)(A)

– (D). In addition, the court must consider: (1) “ the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant ” ; (2) “ the kinds of sentences available ” ; (3) the guideline sentencing range; (4) any pertinent p olicy statements; (5) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (6) the need to provide restitution to any victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)

– (7). Case: 19-14117 Date Filed: 07/02/2020 Page: 2 of 73 argument in turn and conclude that Aguilar

- Gil’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. We therefore affirm his sentence. I. Aguilar

- Gil’s central argument on appeal is that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because it did not comply with § 3553(c)(1). W e review de novo whether the district court complied with § 3553(c)(1) regardless of whether the defendant objected below. See United States v. Cabezas

- Montano , 949 F.3d 567, 608 n.39 (11th Cir. 2020)

. At the time of sentencing, a district court must state in open court the reasons that it imposed a particular se ntence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). “ In doing so, the district court should ‘ tailor its comments to show that the sentence imposed is appropriate ’ in light of the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors. ” To meet its obligations under 3553(c)(1), “ the district court nee d only set forth enough to satisfy us that it considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority. ” Cabezas

- Montano , 949 F.3d at 6 09

. Where a party presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence, the district court “ will normally go further and explain why [ it ] has rejected those arguments. ” Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 35 7 (2007)

. Nevertheless, a brief explana tion may be legally sufficient when the sentence imposed is within the guideline range, the arguments before the court are

Case: 19-14117 Date Filed: 07/02/2020 Page: 3 of 74 “straightforward [and] conceptually simple,” and the record establishes that the court considered the § 3553(a) factors. Id. at 356. We consider the record as a whole to determine if the district court did, in fact, consider the evidence, arguments, and § 3553(a) factors, as required by § 3553(c). Id. at 359; Cabezas

Montano , 949 F.3d at 608

– 09. Here, the district court met its obligations under § 3553(c)(1) in imposing Aguliar

- Gil’s sentence

. Prior to sentencing, Aguliar

- Gil filed a sentencing memorandum, in which he discussed § 3553(a) factors

— specifically, his history and characteristics , and the advisory guideline range

— and requested a downward variance of 24 months’ imprisonment

. At sentencing, t he court confirmed that it had reviewed Aguilar

- Gil’s sentencing memorandum. A nd it heard A guilar

- Gil’s argument as to why a b elow

- Guidelines sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment was appropriate , as well as the government’s argument for a 30 months’ sentence

. But the court expressed its concern with Aguilar

- Gil’s criminal record, specifically his history of resistance to law enfo rcement , which goes to his personal characteristics and lack of respect for the law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)

. Before pronouncing its sentence, the court cited 18 U.S.C. §§ 3551 and 3553 and stated that it had also considered “the presentence report and the advisory g uidelines.” And a fter pronouncing the 34

- month sentence, the court concluded “[a]fter considering the advisory guidelines and all the factors identified in Title 18 U.S. Code Sections

Case: 19-14117 Date Filed: 07/02/2020 Page: 4 of 75 3553(a)(1) through (7), I find the sentence imposed is sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing. ” This explanation is sufficient for purposes of § 3553(c). See Cabezas

- Montano , 949 F.3d at 609 (holding that district court provided a sufficient e xplanation for the sentence imposed where the “ district court judge expressly articulated that it had considered the parties’ arguments, the PSRs containing the advisory guidelines ranges, and the § 3553(a) factor s”)

. Accordingly, b ecause the record clearl y establishes that the court “considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority,” Cabezas

- Montano , 949 F.3d at 609, Aguilar

Gil has not shown that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable. II. Aguilar

- Gil also raises in passing a substantive reasonableness challenge, arguing that because the district court did not provide any reasons for the sentence it imposed, it “failed to afford consideration to the relevant [§ 3553(a)] fac tors that were due significant weight, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, and committed a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discreti on. 4 United St ates v. Carpenter , 803 F.3d 1224, 1234 (11th Cir. 2015).

4 Although Aguilar

- Gil did not object to his sentence, by advocating for a downward

varianc e sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment, he preserved his argument that the 34

- month sentence imposed was substantively unreasonable. See Holguin

- Hernandez v. United States , 140

Case: 19-14117 Date Filed: 07/02/2020 Page: 5 of 76 The weight given to each § 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound discretion of the district court, and this Court will not substitute its judgment in weighing the relevant factors. United States v. Clay , 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007). A district court abuses its discretion by: (1) failing to consider relevant factors that were due significant weight; (2) giving an improper or irrelevant factor substantial weight; or ( 3) committing a clear error of judgment by balancing proper factors unreasonably. United States v. Irey , 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2 010) (en banc)

. That said, the district court is not required to discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors. Id. at 1195. It is sufficient for the district court to acknowledge that it has considered the defendant’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors. Id. at 1194

- 95. Moreover , this Court ordinarily expects a sentence within the guideline range to be reasonable. United States v. Croteau , 819 F.3d 1293, 1309

− 10 (11th Cir. 2016). That the sentence imposed falls well below the statutory maximum penalty also indicates reasonablen ess. Id. at 1310. Nothing in the record supports Aguilar

- Gil’s contention that the district court failed to consider certain factors or gave weight to improper or irrelevant factors. The district court properly considered Aguilar

- Gil’s criminal record, specifically his history of resistance to law enforcement , which goes to his personal

S. Ct. 762, 767 (2020) (holding that a defendant sufficiently preserved a chall enge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence by arguing at sentencing for a shorter sentence).

Case: 19-14117 Date Filed: 07/02/2020 Page: 6 of 77 characteristics and lack of respect for the law and it then § 3551

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)

. Moreover, the 34

- month sentence was within the middle of the gui deline range and well below the statutory maximum of ten years , which are indicators of reasonableness

. See Croteau , 819 F.3d at 1309

– 10

. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, and Aguilar

- Gil’s sentence is substan tively reasonable. AFFIRMED. Case: 19-14117 Date Filed: 07/02/2020 Page: 7 of 7