FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 18, 2011 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 0- 11 08 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 9- cr-0 00 64 -HL-CWH-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ELEAZ ER GAONA-IBARROLA, 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 Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 18 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES, HULL andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Afte r pl ead in g g ui lt y , Eleaz er Gao na -Ib arro laap pe al s h is 48 -m on th

se nt en ce fo r ree nt ry

of ade po rte d a li en , in vi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6( a), (b )(2 ). Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND FACTS A. Offe ns e Con duct Gao na -Ib arro la , a cit iz enof M ex ic o, i ll eg al ly ent eredth e Uni te d S ta te s fo r th e fi rs t t im e in 19 81 . In 1 98 8, Gao na -Ib arro lawas g iv entem po rary resi de nt st atus . Som et im e b efo re 1 99 6, Gao na -Ib arro la ’s tem po rary resi de ntst atus was res ci nd ed , andhe lef

t t he Uni te d S ta te s. Bet ween 19 96 an d 2 00 5, Gao na -Ib arro lail le ga ll y re-e nt eredth e Uni te d St at es at l eas t el ev enti m es . The m ajor it y of Ga on a-Ib arro la ’s arres ts foril le ga l reen try occu rredat t he Uni te d S ta te s/ Mex ic o b or de r. Gaon a-Ib arro lavo lu nt ari ly returne d t o M ex ic o s ev enti m es , andwas d ep orte d t o M ex ic o fo urti m es . Whi le in th e Uni te d S ta te s i ll eg al ly, Gao na -Ib arro laaccrue d asi gn ifi can t nu m be r of cri m in al co nv ic ti on s, i nc lu di ng th eftby recei vi ng in 19 89 ; ex hi bi ti ng a de ad ly w eap on in 19 97 ; s im pl e b at te ry

an d p ub li c dru nk en ne ss in 20 01 ; an d lo it eri ng an d p ro wli ng in20 03 . On J ul y 30 , 20 06 , Gaon a-Ib arro lawas a rres te d i n C ob b C ou nt y , Geor gi a. Gao na -Ib arro lapl edgu il ty to ag gr av at edass au ltan d was sen te nc edto th ree years 2in pri so n. Subs eque nt ly, infed eral co urt, Gao na -Ib arro was c ha rg edwit h, an d

pl edgu il ty to, o ne co un t o f ree nt ry of ade po rte d a li en , in vi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6( a) an d (b )(2 ). B. Pres ente nce I nv es tig at io n Repo rt The pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort (“ PSI” ) cal cu la te d aba se off en se lev el of eig ht , pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 (a). Th e PSI r eco m m en de d t ha t Gao na Ib arro larece iv e: (1) a si xt een -le ve l i nc reas e inhi s b as e o ffen se lev el , pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(A)(i ), be cau se he was p rev io us ly dep orte d fo ll owi ng a co nv ic ti on fora cri m e o f vi ol en ce; an d (2 ) a thr ee-l ev el reduc ti on foracce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y , pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 . W it h ato ta l o ffen se lev el of 2 1 an d c riminal hi st ory

cat eg ory of I II, th e PSI r eco m

m en de d a n a dv is ory

gu id el in es ran ge of 4 6 t o 5 7 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The PSI n ot ed , ho wev er, tha t anup ward va ria nc e m ig htbe warran te d b ecau se of Ga on a-Ib arro la ’s hi st ory of i m m ig rat io n vi ol at io ns . Gao na -Ib arro lafil edwrit te n o bjec ti on s t o t he PSI’s (1 ) si xt een -le ve l en ha nc em en t, (2 ) two cri m in al hi st ory po in ts forco m

m it ti ng th e in st an t o ffen se whi le servi ng a cri m in al jus ti ce s en te nc e, an d (3 ) di sc us si on of t he fact or s t ha t m ig htwarran t an up wardva ria nc e. C. Sent enci ng 3At s en te nc in g, Gao na -Ib arro lareas se rte d o nl y hi s o bjec ti on to th e si xt een le ve l i nc reas e fo r ha vi ng be ende po rte d a fte r co m m it ti ng a cri m e o f vi ol en ce. Gao na -Ib arro laarg ue d t he en ha nc em en t was in ap pr op ria te be cau se he was s ti ll in th e cu st od y

of t he Geor gi a Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s fo r th e cri m e o f vi ol en ce whe n h e was di sc ov eredby cus to m s o ffi ci al s an d c ha rg edwit h t hi s p art ic ul ar il le ga l re en try. T he refo re, Gao na -Ib arro laha d n otbe ende po rte d a ndreen te red aft er the cri m e o f vi ol en ce. The go ve rn m en t ag reedwit h Gao na -Ib arro la . The di stric t co urt s us ta in edGaon a-Ib arro la ’s ob jecti on an d re cal cu la te d t he gu id el in es ran ge . The d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atGaon a-Ib arro la ’s bas e o ffen se le ve l was eig ht , whi ch itreduc edby two l ev el s fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y . 1 The cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory rem ai ne d II I, whi ch y ie ld edanadvi so ry gu id el in es ran ge of t wo t o e ig htm on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Inm it ig at io n, d efen se co un se l ar gu edth at : (1 ) Gao na -Ib arro laha d b een la wfu ll y in th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r fi fte eny ears pri or to hi s fi rs t d ep orta ti on ; (2 ) he was fir stde po rte d b ecau se he fai le d t o re ne w hi s t em po rary resi de nc y

on ti m e; an d (3 ) he ha d e st ab li sh edco m m un it y ti es an d was a go odem

pl oyee, as e vi de nc edby le tt ers fro m

pa stem pl oyers.

Gaona -I barr ola was no long er e ligible f or the a dditional one-leve l reduc tion under 1 U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) bec ause his off ense le vel was le ss than level 16.

4The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t a 4 0- m on th up wardva ria nc e was

warra nt ed , as fo ll ows :

[T]he Co urt aft er co ns id eri n g t he fact or s co nt ai ne d 18 Uni te d St at es Co de , Sect io n 35 53 (a)( 2) is of th e op in io n th at a n up ward va ria nc e is warra nt ed in th is cas e to refl ect th e se r io us ne ss of th e of fen se , to pr om ot e res pe ct fo r th e la w, an d to pr ov id e jus t pu ni sh m en t fo r th e o ffen se . A gr eat er se nt en ce wou ld al so affo rd m or e a d e q ua te de te rren ts [ s i c] to cri m in al co nduc t an d pr ot ect th e publ ic fro m fu rth er cri m es o f th is de fen da nt . The Co urt no te s th e pr io r de po rta ti on of th e de fen da nt , as well as 1 1 a dd it io na l i ll eg al en tri es in to th e Uni te d S ta te s. The di st ric t co urt i m

po se d a48 -m on th sen te nc e, fo ll owe d b y th ree years’ supe rv is edrel eas e. Gaon a-Ib arro lafil edth is ap pe al . II . DISCUSSI ON On ap pe al , Gaon a-Ib arro laarg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e is pro cedur al ly and subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n u si ng a two -s te p p ro ces s. Un it edSta te s v . Pug h, 5 15 F.3d11 79 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e lo okfir stat wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d a ny si gn ifi can t p ro cedur al erro r, su ch as m is cal cu la ti ng th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge , tre at in g t he gu id el in es as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er the 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fact or s, s el ect in g asen te nc e b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to ex pl ai n ad equa te ly the ch os ensen te nc e. Id . Then , we lo okat wh ethe r th e se nt en ce i s subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Id. Gao na 5Ib arro labe ars th e b ur de n t o s ho w hi s s en te nc e is un reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e

reco rdan d t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Uni te d S ta te s v . Tho m as , 44 6 F .3d13 48 , 13 51 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . A. Compli an ce w ith Federa l Rul e o f Cri m in al Proc edur e 3 2( i)( 1) (A) Gao na -Ib arro laco nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt p ro cedur al ly erredwhen itfai le d to askhi m

whet he r he ha d re adan d d is cu ss edth e PSI wi th hi s co un se l. Bec au se Gao na -Ib arro ladi d n otrai se hi s cl ai m of s en te nc in g e rro r in th e d is tri ctco urt, o ur rev ie w is forpl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Beck le s, 5 65 F.3d83 2, 8 42 (11 th Cir .) , cert . den ie d, 1 30 S. Ct. 2 72 (20 09 ). Und er p la inerro r rev ie w, we m ay rev ers e o nl y if t he re i s (1 ) erro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, (3 ) th ataffe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s, an d (4 ) th at se rio us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs . Id . Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 2 re qu ire s, am on g o th er thi ng s, t ha t th e d is tri ctco urt atsen te nc in g “ ve rif y th atth e d efen da ntan d t he de fen da nt ’s at to rn ey ha ve readan d d is cu ss edth e p res en te nc e rep ort an d any add en du m to th e The § 3553(a) fa ctors include: ( 1) the nature a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and the 2 history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d to refle ct the seriousness of the off ense, to promote respe ct for thelaw, and to pr ovide just punishment for the offe nse; (3) the need f or deter renc e; (4) the need to pr otect the public; (5) the nee d to provide the de fenda nt with needed educational or vocational trainingor medica l car e; (6) the kinds of sentenc es ava ilable; (7) the SentencingGuidelines ra

ng e; (8) pe rtinent policy

statements of the Sente ncingCommi ssion; (9) the nee d to avoid unwar

rante d sentenc ing dispa

rities; and (10) the need to pr ovide re stitut ion to victims. 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) . 6rep ort.” Fe d. R. C rim. P. 32 (i) (1 )(A). Ru le 32 do es no t s ta te ho w th e se nt en ci ng

co urt s ho ul d m ak e th is ve rif ic at io n. Th is Co urt h as no t ad dr es se d t he qu es ti on in a publ is he d o pi ni on . 3 Here, t he go ve rn m en t d oe s n otdi sp ut e th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t as k Gao na -Ib arro laor h is co un se l wh ethe r th ey ha d re adan d d is cu ss edth e PSI. Ev en as su m in g a rg ue nd o t hi s was erro r th atwas p la in , Gaon a-Ib arro laha s n otsh own th atitaffe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. To sh ow erro r th ataffe ct edsubs ta nt ia l rig ht s, Gao na -Ib arro lam

us t d em on st rat e a rea so nabl e p ro babi li ty of a d iff eren t res ul t atsen te nc in g abs en t t he erro r. See Un it edSta te s v . Rod rig ue z, 39 8 F .3d 12 91 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Gaon a-Ib arro laha s n otdo ne so . Befo re s en te nc in g, Gao na -Ib arro la ’s cou ns el fil edwrit te n o bjec ti on s t o t he PSI’s g ui de li ne s ca lc ul at io ns . At se nt en ci ng , Goan a-Ib arro la ’s cou ns el reas se rte d
Amongour sister cir cuits, only one has c oncluded that Rule 32 re quires the district cour t 3 to expressly

ask the de fenda

nt whether

he has r ead a

nd discussed the PSIwith counsel. See United States v. Mischler, 787 F .2d 240, 246 (7th Cir. 1986) (re versingwher e district cour t failed to ask defe ndant whethe r he ha d opportunity to rea d and discuss PSIwith defe nse counse l). The majority of the c ircuits to addre ss the question have c oncluded that the district c ourt may drawa rea sonable infe renc e that the de fenda nt has had a

n opportunity

to do so from the re cord a nd from statements of the de fenda nt and def

ense c ounsel. United States v. McManus, 23 F .3d 878, 885 (4th Cir. 1993); United States v. Cruz, 981 F.2d 613, 619-20 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Victoria, 877 F .2d 338, 340 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Thomas, 875 F .2d 559, 562 n.1 (6th Cir. 1989); United States v. May s, 798 F.2d 78, 80 (3d Cir. 1986) . This Court, in applying earlier ver sions of Rule 32, found nothing in the r ule that re quired the district c ourt to specific ally ask the de fenda

nt and counse l if they

had re ad and disc ussed the PSI . See United States v. Phill ips, 936 F.2d 1252, 1255 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. Alema n, 832 F.2d 142, 144 n.6 (11th Cir. 1987). 7on e o f th os e o bjec ti on s– th e o bjec ti on to th e si xt een -le ve l i nc reas e in hi s o ffen se

le ve l– an d p rev ai le d o n t ha t p oi nt . After s us ta in in g Gao na -Ib arro la ’s ob jecti on , th e di st ric t co urt re cal cu la te d t he gu id el in es ran ge . Gaon a-Ib arro laha s n otpo in te d t o an y ot he r m eri to rio us PSI o bjec ti on s h is co un se l s ho ul d h av e m ad e b utdi d n ot m ak e. Und er the cir cu m st an ces , Gaon a-Ib arro laha s n otsh own , with apro babi li ty su ffi ci en t t o u nd erm in e co nf id en ce i n t he ou tc om e, th atha d t he di st ric t co urt as ke d hi m whet he r he ha d re vi ewedth e PSI wi th hi s co un se l, h e wou ldha ve rece iv eda di ffer en t s en te nc e. B. Con si dera tio n o f § 3 55 3( a) Fact or s a nd Rea so n fo r Sen tenc e Gao na -Ib arro laag ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt co m m it te d p ro cedur al erro r by fai li ng to co ns id er h is m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces or a de qu at el y to ex pl ai n t he se nt en ce. Alt ho ug h t he di stric t co urt m us t co ns id er the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, i t i s n ot requi redto “ art ic ul at e sp eci fic al ly the ap pl ic ab il it y –i f an y –o f eac h o f [the m ]. ” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sm it h, 5 68 F.3d92 3, 9 27 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . Rath er, the di st ric t co urt’s ac kn owl ed gm en t t ha t i t h as co ns id eredth e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s t og ethe r wit h t he pa rti es ’ arg um en ts as t o the m it ig at in g a nd ag gr av at in g fa ct or s i s s uf fic ie nt . See Un it edSta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 86 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . 8The di stric t co urt m us t s ta te it s re as on s fo r im po si ng a pa rti cu lar se nt en ce an d, i f th e se nt en ce i s o ut si de th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge , th e co urt m us t s ta te th e sp eci fic reas on forth e v ari an ce. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (c)( 2) . If th e d is tri ctco urt im po se s a v ari an ce, i t m

us t “ en su re tha t t he jus ti fic at io n i s s uf fic ie nt ly com

pe ll in g to supp ort t he de gr ee o f th e v ari an ce.” Un it edSta te s v . W il li am s, 5 26 F.3d13 12 , 13 22 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . The d is tri ctco urt’s re as onne ed no t b e le ng th y ; a b rie f ex pl an at io n m ay su ffi ce wh enth e co nt ex t an d t he reco rd in di cat es th e rea so ni ng be hi ndth e ch os ensen te nc e. Uni te d v . Irey, 61 2 F .3d 11 60 , 11 95 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (en ba nc ). It i s s uf fic ie ntif t he di st ric t co urt h as “ se t 4 fo rth en ou gh to sat is fy

th e ap pe ll at e co urt t ha t [i t] has co ns id eredth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d h as a reas on edba si s fo r ex erci si ng [it s] own leg al de ci si on m ak in g au th or it y .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Ghertl er, 6 05 F.3d12 56 , 12 62 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . Here, t he di st ric t co urt s ta te d t ha t i t h adco ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s i n de te rm in in g Gao na -Ib arro la ’s sen te nc e, whi ch was s uf fic ie ntto de m on strat e th atit in factdi d s o. Th e d is tri ctco urt l is te ne d t o Gao na -Ib arro la ’s arg um en ts in
m it ig at io n a ndwas n otrequi redto ad dr es s t he m ex pl ic it ly. See Un it edSta te s v .

We reviewthe suffic iency of the district cour

t’s explanation of the sentenc e de novo. 4 United States v. Gher

tler, 605 F .3d 1256, 1262 (11th Cir. 2010). 9Am ed eo , 48 7 F .3d82 3, 8 33 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th ata di st ric t co urt’s

fai lu re t o d is cu ss m it ig at in g e vi de nc e d oe s n otm ean th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto co ns id er i t i n d et erm in in g t he sen te nc e). The di stric t co urt al so ad equa te ly exp la in edit s d eci si on to im po se an up wardva ria nc e. Sp eci fic al ly, th e d is tri ctco urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t an up wardva ria nc e was warran te d t o re fle ctth e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w an d p ro vi de jus t p un is hm en t. The di st ric t co urt n ot edth atGaon a-Ib arro laha d al read y be ende po rte d a ndha d i ll eg al ly re-en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s el ev enti m es an d c it edth e n eedto affo rdm or e ad equa te de te rren ce an d p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m fu rth er cr im es by G ao na -Ib arro la . In s um , Gaon a-Ib arro laha s n otsh own th athi s se nt en ce i s p ro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le . C. Subs ta nti ve Reas on ab le nes s Gao na -Ib arro laco nt en ds th atth e 4 0- m on th up wardva ria nc e was subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . W e d is ag ree. Gao na -Ib arro laha s a l on g h is to ry of i m m ig rat io n o ffen se s. Des pi te rep eat edde po rta ti on s, Gao na -Ib arro laco nt inue d t o re tu rnto th e Uni te d S ta te s. Gao na -Ib arro laha s a l on g c riminal hi st ory in th e Uni te d S ta te s, an d h adjus t co m pl et eda pr is on sen te nc e fo r a v io le ntfel on y co m m it te d wh il e h e was il le ga ll y in th e Uni te d S ta te s. Th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t a s ig ni fic an t upwa rd 10va ria nc e was ne ces sa ry to de te r Gao na -Ib arro lafro m ag ai n re -en te rin g t he co un try an d c omm it ti ng futur e cri m es he re. Und er the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , we can no t s ay

th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n i m po si ng a 48 -m on th se nt en ce, 4 0 m on th s ab ov e th e h ig h e ndof t he advi so ry gu id el in es ran ge . AFFIRMED.

11