FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 17, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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 43 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 01 49 -J DW -TBM- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us EDY EDUARDO DELEO N-ARGUETA, a.k .a. Edy De Leo n- Arg ue ta , 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 Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 1 7, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Edy E du ard o DeLe on -Arg ue taap pe al s h is 15 -m on th sen te nc e fo ll owi ng hi s

co nv ic ti on s fo r be in g fo un d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s af te r ha vi ng be ende po rte d, i n vi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6( a), (b )(1 ), an d fo r en te rin g t he Uni te d S ta te s ata ti m e an d p la ce o th er tha n d es ig na te d b y imm ig rat io n o ffi cers , invi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 5( a)(1 ). On ap pe al , DeLeon -Arg ue taarg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le inli gh t o f hi s p ers on al hi st ory an d b ack gr ou nd . 1 W e rev ie w th e subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e u nd er an ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 88 -8 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ), pe ti ti on fo r ce rt . fi le d , (U.S. Nov . 24 , 20 10 ) (No . 10 -7 27 ). The ap pe ll an t h as th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le inli gh t of th e rec or d a ndth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . In a ny giv encas e, th ere i s a r an ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es fro m 2 Deleon- Artueg a conc edes that his sentence is proc edura lly rea sonable. 1 The § 3553(a) fa ctors ar e: 2 (1) the na

ture a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and the history and char acte ristics of the def

endant; (2) the ne ed for

the sentenc e imposed— (A) to r efle ct the seriousness of the off ense, to promote respe ct for the law, and to pr ovide just punishment for the offe nse; (B ) to aff ord ade quate de terre nce to c riminal conduct; (C) to protec t the public from fur ther c rimes of the defe ndant; and (D) to pr ovide the def

endant with nee ded . . . tre atment; (3) the kinds of se ntence s available ; (4) the kinds of se ntence and the se ntencingrang e . . .; 2whi chth e d is tri ctco urt m ay ch oo se . Ir ey , 61 2 F .3dat 1 18 9. Th eref or e, we wil l on ly rem an d asen te nc e whe n t he di stric t co urt co m m it s “ a cl ear e rro r of

jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s b y arri vi ng at asen te nc e th atli es ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Id
. at 1 19 0 (quo ta ti onom it te d) . A sen te nc e wit hi n t he gu id el in es ran ge wil l o rd in ari ly be de em eda reas on ab le on e. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88 . The di stric t co urt ac kn owl ed ge d DeLe on -Arg ue ta ’s exp eri en ces inth e Gua te m al anarm

y , bu t ch os e to gi ve th atfact orles s wei gh t due to th e p as sa ge of ap pr ox im at el y

15 y ears . Ins te ad , th e co urt s ta te d t ha t the cri m es of c on vi ct io n were s eri ou s i n l ig htof the factth atDeLeo n- Arg ue taco nt in ue d t o re en te r th e Uni te d S ta te s i ll eg al ly, an d, o nc e h e ree nt ered , he c omm it te d c rimes in vo lv in g as saul t, dru g p os se ss io n, an d re si st in g a rres t, t o n am e a few. Giv enth es e ci rcu m st an ces , th e d is tri ctco urt re as on ab ly putm or e wei gh t o n t he sen te nc in g fact or s o f ad equa te de te rren ce an d t he pro te ct io n o f th e p ub li c, an d asen te nc e o f ti m e se rv edwou ldno t h av e acc om pl is he d t ho se sen te nc in g o bjec ti ve s. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). The re su lt in g 1 5- m on th sen te nc e is withi n t he gu id el in es

(5) a ny pertinent policy

statement . . .; (6) the ne ed to avoid unwa rra nted sentenc e disparities . . .; and (7) the ne ed to provide r estitution t o any victims of the offe nse. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 3ran ge , andwell be lo w th e st atut ory m ax im um pe na lt y of 1 0 years’ im

pr is on m en t. Se e Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88 ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (co nc lu di ng th atth e se nt en ce was reas on ab le inpa rt b ecau se itwas well be lo w th e st atut ory

m ax im um ). Altho ug h DeLe on -Arg ue taarg ue s t ha t a s ix m on th sen te nc e o f ti m e-s erv edwou ldha ve be enreas on ab le , th ere i s a r an ge of reas on ab le sen te nc es fro m whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt m ay ch oo se , andDeLeo nArg ue taha s n otsh own th atth e co urt’s wei gh in g o f th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s t o a rri ve ata 15 -m on thgu id el in es sen te nc e was un reas on ab le . Ir ey , 61 2 F .3dat 1 18 9; Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88 . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm . AFFIRMED. 3

DeL eon-Argueta’ s reque st for ora l argument is denied. 3 4