FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT May 20, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 14677 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 7 - 0 0 1 0 4 - C R - T - 3 0 E AJ U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s F R A N C I S C O H E RN A N D E Z - P E N A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 20, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: F r a n c is c o H e rn a n d e z - P e n aap p e a ls h is 4 6 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o llo w in g h is2

gu i l ty pl eat o i l l egal re entryby an i nd i vi du alprevi ou sl y c on vi ct ed of an aggravat ed f e l ony , i n vi ol a t i on of

8 U . S . C . §§ 1326( a ) a nd ( b) ( 2) . O n appe a l , H e rna nde z - P e na ar gu es thathi s s ent ence i s proce du ra l l y unrea sonabl e bec ause the di stri ctcourt f a i l e d t o c ons i de ra ny18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) f a c t or s othe rtha n the a dvi s orygui de l i ne rang e i t se l f. H ernand ez -P ena f urther c on t ends thatconsi dera t i on of the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors r evea l s thathi s 46-m on th sent ence i s s ub st ant i vel y unrea sonabl e. W e r e v ie w th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt f o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 785 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . R e c e nt l y , the S upr e m e C ourtc l a r i f

i e d tha tc ourt s of

appe a l a r e t o r e vi e w s e nt e nc e s f orabus e of di s c r e t i on. G a l l v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 552 U . S . __, __, 128 S . C t . 586, 597, 169 L . E d. 2d 44 5 (20 07 ). W e m us tf i r s te ns ur e tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtc om m i tt e d no s i gni f i c a nt p r o c e d u r a l e rr o r , s u c h a s f a ilin g to c a lc u la te ( o rim p r o p e r ly ca l cul at i ng ) the G ui del i nes r ange, tre at i ng the G ui del i nes a s m a nda t ory , f

a i l i ng t o c ons i de rthe § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , s e l e c t i ng a s e n te n c e b a s e d o n c le a r lye rr o n e o u s f a c ts , o rf a ilin g to a d e q u a te ly e xpl a i n the c hos e n s e nt e nc e - i nc l udi ng a n e xpl a na t i on f ora ny devi at i on fr om the G ui del i nes r ange. I d . T o th a t e n d , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt “s h o u lds e t f o rth e n o u g h to s a tis f

yth e ap p e lla te c ourttha the ha s c ons i de r e d the pa rt i e s ’ a r gum e nt s a nd ha s ar e a s one d ba s i s f or e xe r c i s i ng hi s ow n l e ga l de c i s i onm a ki ng author i ty . ” R i t av. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 551 U .S . __ , 1 2 7 S .C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 8 , 1 6 8 L .E d .2 d 2 0 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . H o w e v e r , “n o th in g inUnited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L .Ed.2d 621 (2005). 1 3 B oo ker or el se w here re qu i re s the di stri ctcourtt o st at e on the re cord thati thas

1 e xpl i c i t l yc ons i de r e d e a c h of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s ort o di s c us s e a c h of the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. S cott , 42 6 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 29 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). If the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on i s proce du ra l l y r ea sonabl e, ou r anal ys i s then turns t o the s ubs t a nt i ve r e a s onabl e ne s s of the s e nt e nc e . G a l l , 552 U . S . a t__, 128 S . C t . at59 7. R ea sonabl enes s r evi ew i s def er ent i aland “ the party w ho chal l enges th e s e n te n c e b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f e s tab lis h in g th a t th e s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le in the l i ghtof

both [ the ] r e c or d a nd the f a c t or s i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) . ” T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t788. “ I n r e vi e w i ng the ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e i m pos e d bythe di s tr i c tc ourtf or r e a s onabl e ne s s , w e c ons i de rthe f i na l s e nt e nc e , i n i t s e nt i r e ty , i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s ” r a the rtha n r e vi e w i ng e a c h i ndi vi dua l de c i s i on m a de dur i ng the s e n te n c in g p r o c e s s . U n ite d S ta te s v . V a ln o r , 4 5 1 F .3 d 7 4 4 , 7 5 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . F urtherm ore, “ [t ] he w ei gh tt o b e a cc orded any gi ven § 35 53 (a ) f ac t or i s am att er c om m i tt e d t o the s ound di s c r e t i on of the di s tr i c tc ourt [ , ] ” a nd w e “ w i l l not s ubs t i tut e ourj udgm e nti n w e i ghi ng the r e l e va ntf a c t or s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d 1353, 1363 ( 11th C i r . 2006) , c e rt . di s m i s s e d, 127 S . C t . 3040 ( 2007) , abr oga t e d on othe rgr ounds by , K i m br ough v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 552 U . S . __, 1 2 8 S .C t. 5 5 8 , 1 6 9 L .E d .2 d 4 8 1 (2 0 0 7 ). W e h av e n o ted th at “a d istrict co u rt’s4

un j ust i fi ed re l i ance on any one S ec t i on 35 53 (a ) f ac t or m aybe a s ym pt om of an un re as on abl e s ent ence . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. P ug h, 51 5 F . 3d 11 79 , 11 91 (11 C i r. th 20 08 ). T he § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors i ncl ud e: ( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e a nd the hi s t orya nd ch aract eri st i cs o f th e d efen d an t ; (2 ) th e n eed t o refl ectth e seri o u sn ess o f th e o ffen se, t o p ro m o t e resp ectfo r th e l aw , an d t o p ro v i d e j u st p u n is h m e n t f

o rth e o f f e n s e ; ( 3 ) th e n e e d f

o rd e te rr e n c e ; ( 4 ) th e n e e d to prot ec tthe pu bl i c; (5) the need t o p rovi de the defendantw i th n ee ded e duc a t i ona l orvoc a t i ona l tr a i ni ng orm e di c a l c a r e ; ( 6) the ki nds of s e nt e nc e s a va i l abl e ; ( 7) the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge ; ( 8) pe rt i ne nt p o lic ys ta te m e n ts o f

th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n ; ( 9 ) th e n e e d to a voi d unw a nt e d s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i t i e s ; a nd ( 10) the ne e d t o pr ovi de rest i tu t i o n t o v i ct i m s. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d at78 6 (sum m ar i zi ng 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) ). A l tho ug h i n R i t a, 55 1 U . S . at__ , 12 7 S . C t . at24 62 , the U . S . S up re m e C ou rt h e ld th a t c o u rts o f

ap p e a ls m a ya f

f o r d ap r e s u m p tio n o f

r e a s o n ab le n e s s to se nt ence s w i thi n the prop er l y c al cul at ed gu i del i nes r ange, w e h a v e d e c lin e d to pr ovi de s uc h apr e s um pt i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m pbe l l , 491 F . 3d 1306, 1313- 1 3 1 4 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). W h i l e w e d o n o tap p l y su ch a p resu m p t i o n , “ th ere i s a r a n g e o f r e a s o n ab l e s e n t e n c e s f

r o m wh i c h th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtm a yc h o o s e [ , ] ” a n d we o rd i n ari l y ex p ecta sen t en ce w i th i n th e g u i d el i n es ran g e t o b e reaso n ab l e. T al l ey, 4 3 1 F . 3 d at7 8 8 . W e h av e al so h el d th atco m p ari n g th e sen t en ce i m p o sed ag ai n st the s t a tut orym a xi m um s e nt e nc e i s one i ndi c a t i on of r e a s onabl e ne s s . V a l nor , 451 F . 3d a t751- 52.Appellant’s request for oral a rgument is denied. 2 5 U pon r e vi e w of

the pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e porta nd s e nt e nc i ng tr a ns c r i pt , a nd upon c ons i de r a t i on of the br i e f s of the pa rt i e s , w e di s c e rn no r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . W e c o n c lu d e th a t H e rn a n d e z - P e n a ’s s e n te n c e is p r o c e d u r a lly r e a s onabl e be c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l yc a l c ul a t e d the a dvi s orygui de l i ne ra n g e, co n sid er ed th e r elev an t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f ac to rs , co n sid er ed H ern an d ez -P en a’s a r g u m e n ts f

o rab e lo w - g u id e lin e s e n te n c e , a n d a rtic u la te d ar e a s o n e d b a s is f o rits deci si on . F urther, H ernand ez -P ena f ai l ed t o m ee thi s burden o f e st abl i shi ng that h is 4 6 - m o n th s e n te n c e a t th e lo w e n d o f th e g u id e lin e r a n g e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly un re as on abl e. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm H ernand ez -P ena’ s s ent ence . AF F I RME D. 2