FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 12, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 10 08 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-2 03 69 -AJ- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e,

ve rs us JAM ES WALKER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 12 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BARKETT an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ja m es W al ke r ap pe al s h is sen te nc e o f 36 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, i m

po se d aft er h e p le d g ui lt y

to 1 co un t o f co ns pi racy to d is tri bu te ox y co do ne , invi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 . On ap pe al , he a rg ue s t ha t the di stric t co urt i m pr op erl y en ha nc edhi s s en te nc e fo r po ss es si on of aweap on , pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ), an d d en ie d h im saf ety -v al ve rel ie f, pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 5 C1 .2(a )(2 ), bu t co nc ed es th atan y all eg ederro r is in su ffi ci en t fo r rev ers al be cau se th e co urt s ta te d t ha t i t wo ul d s ti ll im po se th e sa m e se nt en ce re ga rd le ss of it s re so lu ti on of t ho se gu id el in e is su es . W al ke r fu rth er ar gu es th athi s s en te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . W e rev ie w a de fen dant ’s sen te nc e fo r rea so nabl en es s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Bo ok

er , 54 3 U.S. 2 20 , 26 4, 1 25 S.Ct . 73 8, 7 67 , 16 0 L.Ed .2d62 1 (2 00 5) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. C ra wf ord , 40 7 F .3d11 74 , 11 79 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W al ke r ha s n otsat is fie d h is bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g t ha t h is sen te nc e was un reas on ab le . Firs t, h e co nc ed es th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d tha t i t wo ul d h av e im po se d a36 -m on th sen te nc e reg ard le ss of t he § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) en ha nc em en t and § 5C1 .2 safe ty-val ve rel ie f. Eve n if W al ke r’s ob jecti on s had be en gr an te d, hi s gu id el in e ran ge wou ld ha ve be en 37 to 46 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, so hi s 36 -m on th se nt en ce was st il l bel ow th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge . Thu s, any al le ge d

2gu id el in e erro rs di d no t affect hi s sen te nc e. Furth erm or e, he fai le d t o s ho w th at 1 hi s s en te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le , as t he di st ric t co urt s ta te d t ha t i t h ad co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d i m po se d asen te nc e th atwas s uf fic ie nt , bu t no t g reat er tha n n eces sa ry , to sat is fy th e requi rem en ts of § 35 53 (a). Th e co urt al so rev ie wedW al ke r’s cri m in al hi st ory , di sc us se d t he ne edforde te rren ce, co ns id ered th e ad vi so ry

gu id el in e ran ge , andst at edth atitwant edto tak e in to acco un t W al ke r’s ag e, he al th , fam il y ob li ga ti on s, an d l ackof r eci di vi sm , all of wh ic h a re pr op er co ns id erat io ns un de r § 3 55 3( a). Acco rd in gl y , we ho ldth atW al ke r’s se nt en ce was reas on ab le an d we a ffi rm . AFFIRMED.

Walker’s c laims also fail on the merits, as the district c ourt properly applied the 1 wea pons enhanc ement and de nied safe ty -valve relief . 3