FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T MARCH 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 13 55 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 6 :0 9- cr-0 02 59 -ACC- GJK-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us
JAIR O MODESTO MIRANDA-GARCI A,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 16 , 20 11 )
Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:
Ja iro Mo de st o Mi ran da -Garc ia ap pe al s hi s 70 -m on th se nt en ce, im po se d at th e
bo tt om of th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , aft er pl ead in g gu il ty to on e co un t of reen tryof a de po rte d al ie n, in vi ol at io n of 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a) an d (b )(2 )

. Mi ran da -Garc ia

arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce: (1 ) is pro ced ur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ct co ur t
fai le d to ad eq ua te ly exp la in it s re as on in g, an d (2 ) is pro ced ur al ly an d su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t cou rt fail ed to ad eq ua te ly con si de r an d th en gr an t

a do wnwar d va ria nc e co ns is te nt wit h th e pe nd in g am en dm en t to § 2L1 .2 effe ct iv e on
N ove m be r 1, 2010 , al low ing fo r a do wnwar d de pa rtu re ba se d on cu lt ur al as si m ila tio n.
Afte r th or ou gh rev ie w, we affi rm
. W e r e v ie w t he se nt en ce a di st ric t co ur t im po se s fo r “ reas on ab le ne ss ,” whi ch

“ m erel y as ks whe th er th e tri al co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n
. ” U n i t e d St at es v. Pu gh , 51 5 F .3d 11 79 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Rit a v
. Uni te d Stat es , 55 1 U.S. 3 38 , 35 1 (2 00 7) ).

In rev ie win g se nt en ces fo r reas on ab le ne ss , we pe rfo rm two st ep s. Id

. at 11 90

. Fi rs t, we m

us t “ ‘ens ur e th at th e d i st ric t co ur t co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al

erro r, su ch as fai li ng to c a l cu la te (o r im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ran ge ,
tre at in g th e Gui de li ne s as man da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s,

se le ct in g a se nt en ce ba se d on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s, or fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n
th e ch os en se nt en ce -- in cl ud in g an ex pl an at io n fo r an y de vi at io n fro m th e Gui de li ne s

2ran ge .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Gall v. Uni t e d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38 , 51 (2 00 7) ). The di st ric t 1

co ur t ne ed no t di sc us s each § 35 53 (a) fact or
. Uni te d St at es v. Tall ey , 43 1 F.3 d 78 4,
78 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). It is ge ne ral ly su ffi ci en t th at th e reco rd , vi ewed a s a w h ol e,
refl ect s th at th e se nt en ci ng jud ge co ns id ered th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts an d ha s ta ke n th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s pr op erl y in to acco un t. See, e.g ., U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Irey, 61 2 F.3 d
11 60 , 11 94 -9 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (en ba nc ), pe ti ti on fo r c e r t

. f il ed , (U.S. Nov

. 24 , 20 10 ) (No . 10 -7 27 ).
If we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t pr oc ed ur al ly err, we m us t co ns id er
th e “ ‘sub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss of th e se nt en ce im p o s e d un de r an ab us e-o fdi sc ret io n st an da rd ,’ ” ba se d on th e “ ‘tot al it y of th e ci rcu m st an ces .’ ” Pu gh , 51 5 F.3 d

at 11 90 (q uo ti ng Gall , 55 2 U.S. at 51 ). Thi s revi ew is “ de fere nt ia l,” r eq ui rin g u s to
de te rm in e “ whe th er th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e di st ric t co ur t f a i l s t o ach ie ve th e
pu rp os es of se nt en ci ng as st at ed in se ct io n 35 53 (a).” Tall ey , 43 1 F.3 d at 78 8. “ The weig ht to be acco rd ed an y gi ve n § 35 53 (a) fact or is a m at te r co m m it te d to th e so un d
di sc ret io n of the di st ric t co ur t, an d we wi ll no t s ub st it ut e o ur jud gm en t in weig hi ng

The § 3553(a ) fa ctors include: ( 1) the na ture a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and the 1 history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d for the se ntence imposed to refle ct the seriousness of the offe nse, to promote re spect for the law, a

nd to provide just punishment for the offe nse; (3) the need f

or the sente nce imposed to a ffor d adequa te deter renc e; (4) the need to protec t the public; (5) the ne ed to provide the defe ndant with educational or voca tional training or medica l car e; (6) the kinds of sentenc es ava ilable; (7) the Sente ncing Guidelines ra ng e; (8) the pertinent policy

statements of the Sente ncing Commi ssion; (9) the nee d to avoid unwanted sentenc ing dispa

rities; and (10) the need to pr ovide re stitut ion to victims . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
3th e rel ev an t fact or s.” Uni te d Stat es v. Am ed eo , 48 7 F.3 d 82 3, 83 2 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 )

(q uo ta ti on an d br ack et s om it te d)

. W e wil l “ va cat e th e se nt en ce if, bu t on ly if, we are
le ft wit h th e de fin it e an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d a cl ear erro r
of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fact or s by arri vi ng at a se nt en ce th at li es

ou ts id e th e ran ge of reas on ab le se nt en ces di ct at ed by th e fact s of th e cas e.” Irey, 61 2
F.3 d at 11 90 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ The pa rty ch al le ng in g th e se nt en ce be ars th e
bu rd en to sh ow i t i s u n r eas on ab le in li gh t of th e reco rd an d th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s.”
Uni te d St at es v. Tom e, 61 1 F.3 d 13 71 , 13 78 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ), cert

. de ni ed , 13 1 S.Ct

. 67 4 (2 01 0)

. “ [O]rdi na ril y , we wou ld ex pe ct a se nt en ce with in th e Gui de li ne s ran ge

to b e reas on ab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Ch av ez, 58 4 F.3 d 13 54 , 1 36 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ),

cert . den ie d, 1 31 S.Ct . 43 6 (2 01 0)

. In th is cas e, Mi ran da -Garc ia ’s se nt en ce was no t un reas on ab le

. As the reco rd
sh ows , th e di st ric t co ur t he ard an d co ns id ered th e arg um en ts of bo th Mi ran da -Garc ia

an d th e go ve rn m en t, th e le tt er fro m hi s fat he r, an d hi s own pe rs on al st at em en t, al on g
wit h ot he r rel ev an t fact or s un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). The di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d
it s reas on in g fo r th e 70 -m on th se nt en ce, no ti ng it s co nc ern s reg ard in g th e ris k of
reci di vi sm , ba s e d on Mi ran da -Garc ia ’s hi st or y of rep eat ed il le ga l reen try to th e
Uni te d St at es an d h i s own st at em en t to th e di st ric t co ur t. Thu s, th e reco rd refl ect s
th at th e se nt en ci ng co ur t en ga ge d in th e ne ces sa ry “ in di vi du al iz ed as se ss m en t ba se d

4on th e fact s pr es en te d” an d in di cat ed it s pa rti cu l a r reas on s fo r im po si ng a se nt en ce
wit hi n t he gu id el in e ran ge un de r § 3 55 3( a). Gal l, 5 52 U.S. at 5 0.
Fu rth erm or e, Mi ran da -Garc ia fai le d t o de m on st rat e th at th e di st ric t co ur t

co m m it te d a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t by no t gr an ti ng a do wnwar d va ria nc e in li gh t of
th e pe nd in g am en dm en t to U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2 for do wnwar d dep art ur es ba se d on th e
of fen de r’s cu lt ur al as si m il at io n. As ack no wled ge d by Mi ran da -Garc ia , th e pr op os ed

am en dm en t was no t y et ad op te d an d in fo rce, an d an y va ri a n c e w ou ld be
di sc ret io na ry fo r th e di st ric t co ur t. The di st ric t co ur t he ard an d co ns id e r ed th is

arg um en t, bu t in de te rm in in g t he fin al sen te nc e, no te d t he st ro ng ris k of reci di vi sm
ba s e d o n Mi ran da -Garc ia ’s pe rs on al hi st or y an d st at em en t. Mi ran da -Garc ia ha s
pr ov id ed no ot he r arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d a cl ear erro r of

jud gm en t
in c o n si de rin g th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. Mi ran da -Garc ia rece iv ed a se nt en ce at th e
bo tt om of t he gu id el in e ran ge an d well be lo w th e 20 -y ear st at ut or y m ax im um

se nt en ce. His sen te nc e is bo th pro ced ur al ly and su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. AFFIRMED.

5