FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT NOV 1, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - N o. 06- 1467 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - D. C. Docket N o. 06-00020 -CR- FT M-33-SPC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MENELEO YA

NES AGUILERA, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt for the Middle District of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - (N ove m be r 1, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, W IL SO N and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Me ne lo Y an es A gui le ra

( “ D ef en dant” ) ap pe al s hi s 46 -m onth se nte nc e fo r illegal reentry

into th e U nited States by an aggravated fe lon, in violatio n of 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) , ( b ) ( 2 ) . We f i n dn o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r ; w e a f f i rm. De fendant pled gui lty

to a one-count ind ictm ent charging him with illegal reentry into th e U nited States. T he Pre -Sentencing Investigation Report (“ PSI ”) pr opos ed ase nte nc ing r an ge of

46 t o 57 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t, ba se d onthe probation officer ’ s finding that De fendant wa s rem oved from the United State s af te r be ing c onvi ct ed

f or tr af fi ck ing c oc ai ne , D ef

en dant’ s a cc ep tanc e of re spon sib ili ty , and D ef

en dant’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed the PS I’ s se nte nc ing c al cu la tio ns. At the sentencing hearing, D efendant argued for a below-Guidelin es se nte nc e, ba se d onse ve ra l m iti ga tin g f ac tor s, inc lud ing his e xtr em e re m or se , his pove rty -s tr ic ke n up br ing ing in H ondura s, his la ck of r el at ive s inH ondura s, and the dis cr im inatio n he suf fe re d inH ondura s be ca

use of his se xua l or ie ntatio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d D ef

en dant’ s r eque st f

or ar ed uc ed se nte nc e an d im

pose d a se nt en ce o f 46 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Inannounc ing thi s se nte nc e, the c ourt st at ed that i t ha d c onsi de re d “ the advisory rec omm endations of the . . . Guidelin es, a nd all the factors identified3

in . . . S ec tio ns 3 553( a) (1 ) thr ough( 7) ” an d f ound “ no r ea son to d ep ar

t f ro m the se nte nc e ca lle d f

or by appl ic at ionof

the gui de lin es . ” T he c ourt no te d th at the se nte nc e w as a t the “ lowe nd o f the gui de lin es ” an d th at D ef en dant’ s c ur

re nt pr obl em s st em

m ed f ro m his pr ior tr af fi ck ing c onvi ct ion , “ a se ri ous vio la tio n of our law s. ” T he c ourt a lso a cknow le dge d th at D ef en dant’ s e nti re f

am ily r es ide d in the U nit ed

S tate s and n ote d th at

D ef en dant w oul d be doi ng the sam e if he ha d no t broken the law. D efendant obje cted to the sentence, arguing th at it wa s

“ un reas on ab le an d a n abu se of d is cret io n.” O n a ppe al , D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

the se nte nc e is unr ea sona ble be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t gi ve r ea l w ei ght to the se ct ion355 3( a) m iti ga tin g e vid en ce he presented at his sentencing hearing and that the sentence is greater than necessary t o ac co m p l i s h th e g o al s o f s en t en ci n g . P urs u an tt o th e S up re m e C o u rt ’s ins tr uc tio ns i n U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. 220 , 264 -6 5, 125 S . Ct . 738 , 767 , 16 0 L.Ed .2d62 1, we re vi ew a d efen da nt ’s ul ti m at e se nt en ce fo r rea so nabl en es s. U nit ed S ta te s v. W ill iam s, 435 F . 3d 1 350, 135 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) . T his r ev ie wis

“ de fe re nti al , ” an d “ the party w ho c ha lle nge s th e se nte nc e be ar s th e bur de n of es ta bli shi ng tha t the se nte nc e is unr ea sona ble in lig ht o f both th [e ] r ec or d and the factors in section 3553 (a). ” United States v. T alley , 431 F. 3d 78 4, 788 (11th Cir. 2005 ). A lth oughw e have sa id tha t a se nte nc e w ith in the G uid el ine s r an ge is notThe Supreme Court concluded r ece ntly that a fe dera l appellate c ourt may apply a pre sumption * o f r e a s o n a

b le n e s s to a p r o p e r ly c a lc u late d s e n te n c e f a ll in g w it h in th e G u id e li n e s r an g e . Rita v. Un ite d St ate s, 12 7 S. Ct. 24 56 , 2 46 3 ( 20 07 ). We h ave no te d th at th e ratio nale of Ri ta ca lls int o question o u r reasons for not a ffor ding a presumption of re asonable ness. See United States v. Campbell, 491 F.3d 1306, 1314 n.8 (11 Cir. 2007). th 4 pe r se r ea sona

ble , w e have not ed

that w e w oul d “ or din ar ily ” expe ct suc h a se nte nc e to b e re as ona

ble . I d. W e w ill onl y

r em an d f or r e- se nte nc ing if

“ the * district court com

m itted a clear

err or of j udgm ent in weighing th e § 3553(a) factors by arr iving at a sentence that lies outs ide the range of re asonable sentences dic tate d by

the f ac ts o f the c as e. ” W ill iam s, 456 F . 3d at 13 63. Ar ev ie wof

the r ec or d sh ow s th at

D ef en dant’ s se nte nc e is p ro ce dur al ly re as ona ble be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d D ef en dant’ s arg um en ts o n th e section 355 3(a) m itigatin g factors in im posin g Def

endant’ s sentence. The c ourt w as not r equir ed to an al y ze spe ci fi ca lly

and t o a cc ep t or

to re j ec t e ac h of D ef en dant’ s arg um en ts. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. S co tt, 426 F . 3d 1 324, 132 9 ( 11th Ci r. 200 5) ( “ [N ] oth ing in Bo oke r or e lse w he re r equir es the dis tr ic t c ourt t o st at e on the r ec or d th at

it ha s e xpl ic itl y

c onsi de re d e ac h of

the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s or to dis cu ss e ac h of

the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s. ”) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ar d te sti m ony and ar gum en t f

ro m D ef en dant o n th e pr opos ed

m iti ga tin g f

ac tor s and u lti m at el y co n cl u d edth atth e f

ac t o rs d i dn o to u twe i g h th e s er i o u s n es s o f D ef en d an t ’s crim inal histo ry , an elem ent accounted for in the Guidelines calculation. S ee5

U nit ed S ta te s v. H unt , 459 F . 3d 1 180, 118 5- 86 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) ( upho ldi ng sentence as re asonable where the district court expressly acknowledged that it had co nsi de re d th e se ct ion355 3( a) f ac tor s and “ult im at el y

de ci de d to giv e co nsi de ra ble w ei ght

to the G uid el ine s inthi s c as e” ). S uc h ade ci sio n w as w ith in the sound d isc re tio n of

the dis tr ic t c ourt. S ee W ill iam s, 456 F . 3d at 13 63 ( statin g that we will not “ subs titute ou r j udgm ent in weighing relevant factors”) . A nd, w he n c onsi de ri ng D ef en dant’ s c ri m ina l hi sto ry a s an a ggr av at ed

f el on and the twenty -y ears statutory m axim um term of im prisonm ent, w e cannot say that D ef en dant’ s se nte nc e at

the lowe nd o f the G uid el ine s r an ge w as sub stanti ve ly unreasonable. W e theref ore af firm De fendant’ s sentence. AFFIR MED.