FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T APRI L 27, 201 1 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 16 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNos . 6: 09 -cr- 00 04 7- BAE-GRS-1 ,

6: 09 -cr- 00 05 7- BAE-GRS-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ALEJANDRO AGUILAR-RAMIR EZ, a.k .a. Alex , 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 fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 27 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARCUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Alejan dr o Ag ui la r-Ra m ire z p le d g ui lty in sep arat e cas es to co ns pi racy to po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 , and un la wfu l re en try int o t he Uni te d S ta te s, i n v io la ti on of 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6. Th e se nt en ce ra ng e p res cri be d b y th e Gui de li ne s ca ll edfora se nt en ce i n e achcas e o f 97 to 12 1 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co urt v ari edup ward ly from th at ran ge an d s en te nc edAgu il ar-R am ire z to co nc urren t p ris on term s o f 14 4 m on th s. He no w app eal s h is sen te nc es on th e g ro un d t ha t the y are u nr eas on ab le . 1 W e rev ie w a se nt en ce fo r rea so nabl en es s u nd er the ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd . Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 5 97 , 16 9 L.Ed .2d 44 5 (2 00 7) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. S ar ra s , 57 5 F .3d11 91 , 12 19 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Thi s rev ie w is de fere nt ia l. The ap pe ll an t b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th e ab se nc e of reas on ab le ne ss inli gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e se nt en ci ng fact or s o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Rev ie w forreas on ab le ne ss ha s t wo s te ps . Firs t, we m us t “ en su re tha t t he di st ric t co urt co m

m it te d n o s ig ni fic an t p ro cedur al erro r, su chas f ai li ng to cal cu la te (o r im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g the Gui de li ne s as

He a lso challeng es the district cour t’s drugquantity

deter mination in fix ing the 1 Guidelines sentenc e ra

ng e for the § 846 offe nse. He abandone d the cha lleng e in the district court; henc e, we do not consider it her e. United States v. Horsfall , 552 F.3d 1275, 1283- 84 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. de nied, 129 S.Ct . 2034 (2009). 2m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, s el ect in g asen te nc e b as edon

cl earl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e.” Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S .Ct. at59 7; Uni te d Sta tes v. Li ves ay , 52 5 F .3d10 81 , 10 93 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Proc edur al erro rs can als o i nc lu de sel ect io n o f a s en te nc e th atis ba se d o n c le arl y

erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai lu re t o a de qu at el y ex pl ai n t he ch os en se nt en ce. Uni te d Sta tes v. Pugh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 90 (11 thCir . 20 08 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . A dis tri ctco urt n eedno t ex pr es sl y di sc us s ea chan d e ve ry

§ 3 55 3( a) fact or at t he ti m e o f se nt en ci ng , bu t n eedon ly not e th atitha s co ns id ereda de fen da nt ’s arg um en ts alo ng with t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 86 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Seco nd , we m

us t d et erm in e whe th er the sen te nc e im po se d i s s ub st an ti ve ly reas on ab le ba se d o n t he fact or s i n § 35 53 (a). Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S .Ct. at 59 7. Gal l in st ru ct s t ha t t he di stric t co urt “ m us t m ak e an in di vi du al iz edass es sm en t ba se d o n t he fact s p res en te d.” Id. at50 , 12 8 S .Ct. at59 7. “ The weig htto be acco rd edan y

gi ve n § 35 53 (a) fa ct oris a m at te r co m m it te d t o the so un d d is cret io n of th e d is tri ctco urt.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Cla y , 48 3 F .3d73 9, 7 43 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . The § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s i nc lu de : (1 ) th e n atur e an d c irc um st an ces of t he of fen se an d t he hi st ory

an d c haract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt ; (2 ) th e n eedto refl ect

3th e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se , to pro m ot e res pe ctforth e law, andto pro vi de jus t pu ni sh m en t fo r th e o ffen se ; (3 ) th e n eedforde te rren ce; (4) th e n eedto pro te ctth e publ ic ; (5 ) th e n eedto pro vi de th e d efen dantwith n eed ededuc at io na l o r vo cat io na l t rai ni ng or m ed ic al care ; (6 ) th e k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e; (7) th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ran ge ; (8 ) pe rti ne ntpo li cy st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on ; (9 ) th e n eedto av oi d u nwa nt edsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s; an d (1 0) th e ne edto pro vi de res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). The sen te nc es are n otun reas on ab le in th is cas e b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredth e st at em en ts of t he pa rti es , th e d efen da nt ’s hi st ory as s etou t i n t he pr es en te nc e rep ort, co rrec tl y cal cu la te d t he Gui de li ne s s en te nc e ran ge , and co ns id eredth e fac to rs setou t i n § 35 53 (a). Mo reo ve r, th e se nt en ces are n ot subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt s pe ci fic al ly dis cu ss edth e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s t ha t af

fect edit s d eci si on to im

po se th e ch al le ng edvaria nc e, pa rti cu la rly no ti ng th e d efen da nt ’s cri m in al hi st ory an d t he li ke li ho odth athe wil l co m m itfurth er o ffen se s o n re le as e fro m cu st od y . AFFIR MED.

4