FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 24, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 22 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cr-0 01 81 -WSD-GGB-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us HORBIN ARTIAGA-LAINES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 24 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Hor bi n Art ia ga -Lai ne s p le ad edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f ree nt ry of ade po rte d al ie n, i n v io lati on of 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6( a), an d was sen te nc edto 27 m on th s’im

pr is on m en t. He n ow ap pe al s, ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e im po se d a s subs tant iv el y

un reas on ab le . W e aff

irm. Afterbe in g d ep orte d i n 1 99 9, 2 00 1, an d 2 00 2 fo ll owi ng dru g- rel at ed co nv ic ti on s, Art ia ga -Lai ne s ag ai n re en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t p erm is si on . Aut ho rit ie s d is co ve redhi s re tu rnwhen he was arres te d fo r an ot he r drug off en se in 20 10 . Arti ag a-Lai ne s the n p le ad edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f il le ga l re en try un de r 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6( a). The di stric t co urt ca lc ul at edArti ag a-Lai ne s’s advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 (a), wi th a 12 -le ve l en ha nc em en t b ecau se he ha d pr ev io us ly beende po rte d fo ll owi ng a drug -tr affi ck in g o ffen se , § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(B) . Arti ag a-Lai ne s re cei ve d a3-l ev el reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity , whi ch res ul te d i n ato ta l ad

jus te d o ffen se lev el of 1 7. Art ia ga -Lai ne s’s cr im in al hi st ory pl acedhi m

incat eg ory

II, bu t the re were two pri ordru g c on vi ct io ns th atwere n ot co un te d i n t he cal cu la ti on s b ecau se th ey were t oo rem ot e inti m e. The re su lt in g gu id el in e ran ge Arti ag a-Lai ne s fa cedwas 2 7 t o 3 3 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Arti ag a-Lai ne s re qu es te d asen te nc e b el ow the advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge , ex pl ai ni ng th athi s fa m il y rem ai ne d i n Ho ndur as , he n ow re al iz edth e se ve rit y of th e p un is hm en t h e fac edforhi s co nt in ue d i ll eg al reen tri es , andhe no lo ng er wis he d t o re tu rnto th e Uni te d S ta te s b ecau se th e jou rn ey was v ery lo ng an d 2da ng ero us . The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edArti ag a-Lai ne s t o 2 7 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t, the lo w endof t he gu id el in e ran ge , st at in g t ha t the sen te nc e was jus t p un is hm en t tha t was ne ces sa ry to de te r su chbe ha vi oran d t o p ro te ctth e publ ic . The co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t i t h adco ns id eredhi s b ack gr ou ndan d t he na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se , st at in g: “ I be li ev e und er the 35 53 fact or s tha t th is is a fai r an d re as on ab le sen te nc e.” W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e und er a d efer en ti al ab us e o f di sc ret io n s tand ard . Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1 (2 00 7) . W e m ay set as id e a s en te nc e o nl y

if we d et erm in e, aft er g iv in g aful l m eas ur e o f de fere nc e to th e se nt en ci ng jud ge , th atth e se nt en ce i m po se d t ru ly is u nr eas on ab le . Uni te d St at es v. Ire

y , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S.Ct . 18 13 (20 11 ). The di stric t co urt m

us t i m po se a se nt en ce “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er tha n ne ces sa ry to co m pl y with the purp os es ” li st edin§ 3 55 3( a)(2 ). 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). The se purp os es in cl ud e th e n eedto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he of fen se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , det er cri m in al co nduc t, an d p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m th e d efen da nt ’s futur e cri m in al co nduc t. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 2) . W e ex am in e whe th er the sen te nc e is subs tant iv el y

reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Gal l , 55 2 3U.S. at 5 1. “ The pa rty chal le ng in g t he sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n t o s ho w itis

un reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. To me , 61 1 F .3d13 71 , 13 78 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Altho ug h we d o n otau to m at ic al ly pr es um e a s en te nc e fal li ng withi n t he gu id el in e ran ge to be reas on ab le , we or di na ril y ex pe ctsu cha se nt en ce t o b e rea so nabl e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Hu nt , 52 6 F.3 d 7 39 , 74 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Afte r a rev ie w of the reco rd , we con cl ud e th atArti ag a-Lai ne s h as no t m et hi s b ur de n t o d em on st rat e th athi s s en te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . The 27 -m on th sen te nc e is reas on ab le as a n a tt em ptto de te r Arti ag a-Lai ne s fr om reen te rin g t he Uni te d S ta te s ag ai n . Altho ug h Art ia ga -Lai ne s o ffer edm it ig at in g fact or s i n s up po rt o f hi s re qu es t fo r a b el ow- gu id el in e se nt en ce, the di st ric t co urt co ns id eredth e n eedto pu ni sh an d d et er b efo re fi nd in g t ha t a s en te nc e atth e lo w en d o f th e g ui de li ne ran ge was s uf fic ie nt , bu t n otgre at er tha n n eces sary to m eet th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. An d, d es pi te Arti ag a-Lai ne s’s cl ai m th atth e lo ng term

of im pr is on m en t h e wou ldface inth e fu tu re i f he were t o re tu rnwil l d et er h im , hi s hi st ory de m on st rat es hi s re ci di vi stbe ha vi or . He has rep eat ed ly reent eredth e Uni te d S tate s d es pi te th e lo ng an d d an ge ro us journ ey , hi s fa m il y ’s pre se nc e in Hon du ras , hi s ch il d’s i ll ne ss , andth e ri skof i nc reas edpu ni sh m en t. An d wi th each reen try, Artia ga -Lai ne s co m m it te d a no th er dru g- rel at edoff en se . On th es e fac ts , 4we can no t co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n.

W e al so rejectArti ag a-Lai ne s’s ar gu m en ts th at(1) th e co urt fa il edto pr op erl y co ns id er the no n- vi ol en t n atur e o f hi s fe de ral off en se , (2) th e 1 2- le ve l en ha nc em en t l edto a subs tant iv el y un reas on ab ly sen te nc e b ecau se itis arb itrary, an d (3 ) th e se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le be cau se itrep res en ts do ub le -co un ti ng . Thes e arg um en ts , rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , do no t s ho w th atth e co urt erredin de te rm in in g a n app ro pr iate sen te nc e. As a res ul t, Art ia ga -Lai ne s d idno t m eethi s 1 bu rd enof s ho win g t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n. Th e se nt en ce im po se d i s re as on ab le . AFFIRMED.

We reviewsentenc ing a rguments raised f

or the fir st tim e on appe al for pla in error . 1 United States v. Bonilla , 579 F.3d 1233, 1238 ( 11th Cir. 2009). We have not addr essed the relationship between the pla in error standard of

revie w and r easona

bleness re view in a published opinion. But we ne ed not re solve the question her e bec ause Artiag a-L aines’s se ntence is rea sonable unde r an a

buse of discr etion standard of revie w. 5