FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 19, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 06- 12842 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 2 0 7 1 0 - CR - DLG 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 A N T H O N Y B O A T W R I G H T , 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 19, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A nthony B oa tw r i ght( “ B oa tw r i ght ” ) appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s e nt e nc e of2

thr e e - y e a r s ’ pr oba t i on w i th as pe c i a l c ondi t i on of s i x m onths ’ hom e de t e nt i on f or the f tof gove rnm e ntf

unds a nd f

orm a ki ng m a t e r i a l l y f

a l s e s t a t e m e nt s , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 3 71 and 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 00 1(a) (2). O n app ea l , B oatw ri gh tar gu es that hi s s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e be c aus e i ti s gr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry a nd e xc e e ds the g o v er n m en t’ s r ec o m m en d ed se n ten ce . B ec au se w e f in d th e d istrict co u rt’s s e n te n c e r e a s o n ab le , w e a f f irm . I n p a r tic u la r , B o a tw r ig h t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s e n te n c e is unr e a s onabl e be c aus e i tf a i l s t o t a ke i nt o c ons i de r a t i on ( 1) hi s good e m pl oy m e nt hi s t ory ; ( 2) tha the i s c a r i ng f ors i x m i norc hi l dr e n; ( 3) tha the ha s no pr i orf e l ony conv i ct i on s; and (4) thathe di d n otuse the D epartm entof H ou si ng and U rban D e v e lo p m e n t- f

u n d e d h o u s in g a s s is ta n c e p a y m e n ts to p u r c h a s e lu x u ry ite m s , b u t to pr ovi de hi s f

a m i l yw i th the ba s i c ne c e s s i t i e s of l i f e . M or e ove r , B oa tw r i ght cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourt , i n i m po si ng i t s s ent ence , shou l d h ave c on si dere d h is s ta te m e n t a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g a s to w h y th e o f f e n s e w a s c o m m itte d . W e rev i ew sen t en ces i m p o sed u n d er th e p o st -B o o ker a dvi s ory G ui de l i ne s c h e m e f o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s . U

ni te d State s v . W

i ni nge ar , 422 F . 3d 1241, 1244- 45 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; U

ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 543 U . S . 220, 260- 63, 125 S . C t . 738, 76 5-66 , 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ) ( ho l di ng thatappel l at e c ou rt s r evi ew se nt ence s for unreas on abl enes s i n l i gh tof the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors) . F ol l ow i ng the B oo ke r3

de c i s i on, the di s tr i c tc our tf i r s tm us tc orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e the r a nge pr ovi de d by the s e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . U ni ted Stat es v. T

al ley , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 6 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . N e x t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m u s t c o n s id e rth e f a c to r s id e n tif

ie d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) to d e te rm in e ar e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e . I d. W e ha ve he l d tha tonc e the di stri ctcourthas c orre ct l y c al cul at ed the advi soryG ui del i ne ra ng e, i tm aythen im p o s e am o r e s e v e r e o rm o r e le n ie n t s e n te n c e a s lo n g a s it is r e a s o n ab le . U ni ted S ta tes v. Cra w

f o rd , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . O u rr e v ie w f

o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s is d e f e r e n tia l. T

al ley , 4 3 1 F .3 d at 7 8 8 . “ W e m us te va l ua t e w he the rthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc our tf a i l s t o a c hi e ve the purpos e s of

s e nt e nc i ng a s s t a t e d i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) , ” a nd i n e va l ua t i ng a s e n te n c e f

o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s , “w e r e c o g n iz e th a t th e r e is ar a n g e o f r e a s o n ab le se nt ence s f

rom w hi ch the di stri ctcourtm aychoo se . . . . ” I d. T he § 3 55 3(a) f a c to r s in c lu d 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 ory a nd ch aract eri st i cs o f th e d efen d an t ; (2 ) th e n ee d to 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 ) t h 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 rovid e th e defe nd antw 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 en c 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 r t i ne nt p o lic y s 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 ) t h e n e e d to a v o i 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 r e s titu tio n to v ic tim s . I d. a t 7 8 6 ; s e e al

s o 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . W e a l s o ha ve not e d tha t“ w he n the4

d i s tr i c tc o u r ti m p o s e s as e n t e n c e wi th i n th e a d v i s o ry Gu i d e l i n e r a n g e , we ordi nari l y w i l l expectthatchoi ce t o b e are as on abl e one. ” T al ley , 431 F . 3d a t788. I n U n ite d S ta te s v . Sc o tt , w e hel d thata di stri ctcourt ’ s s t at em entthati thad consi dere d the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors a nd the defendant ’ s a rgum ent s abo uttho se fa ct ors is s u f f ic ie n t in p o s t- B oo ke rs e nt e nc e s t o i ndi c a t e tha ti tc ons i de r e d the f a c t or s . 426 F . 3d 1324, 1329- 30 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . W e f ur the rhe l d “ tha tnothi ng i n B o o ker or e ls e w h e r e r e q u ir e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to s ta te o n th e r e c o r d th a t it h a s e x p lic itly consi dere d eac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors or t o d i sc uss e ac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. ” I

d. at13 29 . M oreover, w e c on cl ud ed thatthe defendant ’ s s ent ence w as r e a s onabl e be c aus e the di s tr i c tc our ta c c ur a t e l y c a l c ul a t e d the gui de l i ne r a nge a nd th e d ef en d an t’ s s en ten ce at th e lo w en d o f th e r an g e r ef lected th e c o u rt’s c o n s id e r a tio n o f

h is e v id e n c e in m itig a tio n . I d. a t1330. In thi s c as e, the di stri ctcourt ’ s s ent ence w as re as on abl e. T he di stri ctcourt corr ec t l y c al cul at ed the appl i cabl e gui del i ne ra ng e a nd adequat el y c on si dere d the § 35 53 (a ) f ac t ors. B ef

ore i m po si ng the se nt ence , the di stri ctcourtexpres sl y s t at ed tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the s t a t e m e nt s of a l l pa r t i e s , the pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t , a nd the s t a tut ory f a c t or s . T he c our ts pe c i f i c a l l y c ons i de r e d the m i t i ga t i ng f a c to r s th a t B o a tw r ig h t o f f e r e d . A lth o u g h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e x p lic itly d is c u s s e v e ry § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r , it w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to d o s o . Se e Sc o tt , 42 6 F . 3d at5

1329- 30. F i na l l y , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s e nt e nc e of thr e e y e a r s ’ pr oba t i on w i th a s pe c i a l c ondi t i on of

s i x m onths ’ hom e de t e nt i on w a s w i thi n the G ui de l i ne r a nge a n d d id n o t e x c e e d th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m s e n te n c e . B a s e d on ourr e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd the pa r t i e s ’ br i e f s , w e di s c e rn no re vers i bl e e rr or. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm B oatw ri gh t ’ s s ent ence . A F F I R M E D .