FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAR 15, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14669 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 0 0 9 - CR- FTM - 3 3 - SPC U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s F E L I X A S T O R G A R O D R I G U E Z , a .k .a . F e lix A s te r id o , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 15, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A pp el l antw as conv i ct ed i n the di stri ctcourton a pl eaof gu i l ty t o i l l egalIn this c ase, the Sentencing Guidelines prescribed a ter m of imprisonment of between 70 1 to 87 months based on a total offense leve l of 21 and a cri m i n al h i s t o ry

cate g ory of V. Thecourt appropriately consulted the Guidelines and this sentence rang e in fa shioning Appe llant’s sentenc e. 2 r e e ntry i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s a f t e rde por t a t i on f

ora n a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony , a nd se nt ence d t o p ri son for a t erm of 87 m on ths. H e now appeal s hi s s ent ence , cont endi ng thati ti s unrea sonabl e. S e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) o f

T itle 1 8 o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s C o d e r e q u ir e s th a t a d is tr ic t c o u r t “s h a ll im p o s e a s e n te n c e s u f f ic ie n t, b u t n o t g r e a te rth a n n e c e s s a ry , to c o m p ly w i th the pu rposes ” s etforth i n § 35 53 (a )( 2). 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . T ho se pu rposes a r e : the ne e d f

orthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d – ( A ) t o r e f l e c tthe s e r i ous ne s s of th e o ffen se, t o p ro m o t e resp ectfo r th e l aw , an d t o p ro v i d e j u st p u n is h m e n t f

o rth e o f f e n s e ; ( B ) to a f

f o r d a d e q u a te d e te rr e n c e to c r i m i na l c onduc t ; ( C ) t o pr ot e c tthe publ i c f r om f ur the rc r i m e s of

the defe nd ant ; and (D ) t o p rovi de the defendantw i th n ee ded edu ca t i on al o rv o c a tio n a l tr a in in g , m e d ic a l c a r e , o ro th e rc o rr e c tio n a l tr e a tm e n t in the m ostef

fe ct i ve m anner. 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (2). T he di stri ctcourtm ustal so consi der the other f ac t ors l i s t e d i n § 3553( a ) , w hi c h a r e : “ ( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e a nd the hi st ory a nd char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant ; . . . [2] the ki nd s of s ent ence s a va i l abl e ; [ 3] the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge ; [ 4] pe r t i ne ntpol i c y s t a t e m e nt s of 1 th e S en t en ci n g C o m m i ssi o n ; [5 ] th e n eed t o av o i d u n w an t ed sen t en ci n g d i sp ari t i es; a nd [ 6] the ne e d t o pr ovi de r e s t i tut i on t o vi c t i m s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 4313

F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c itin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t is no tre qu i re d, ho w ever , t o st at e on the re cord thati thas e xp l i ci t l y c on si dere d eac h of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s ore ve n t o di s c us s e a c h of thos e f a c t or s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S cott , 42 6 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 29 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). R ather, i ti s s uffi ci entthatthe di stri ct c our ta c know l e dge tha t“ i tha s c ons i de r e d the de f e nda nt ’ s a r gum e nt s a nd the fa ct ors i n sec t i on 35 53 (a ). ” T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d at78 6. In addi t i on , w hi l e ase nt ence w ith in th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e is n o t p e rs e r e a s o n ab le , it is e x p e c te d to b e r e a s o n ab le . I d. a t788. W e c on cl ud e thatappel l ant ’ s s ent ence i s r ea sonabl e. F i rs t , the di stri ctcourt consi dere d the G ui del i nes a s a dv i soryas B oo ker r equi re s. S ec on d, the court c ons i de r e d the f

a c t or s l i s t e d i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , s pe c i f i c a l l y r e f e rr i ng t o the ne e d f orthe s e nt e nc e t o pr ovi de de t e rr e nc e . T hi r d, the c our tc ons i de r e d the s e n te n c e s u f

f ic ie n t b u t n o t g r e a te rth a n n e c e s s a ry to m e e t th e f a c to r s in § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 2 ). F o u rth , th e c o u rt stated th at ith ad h ea rd an d co n sid er ed ap p ellan t’ s ar gu m ent s a nd t es t i m on y i n m i t i gat i on , bu tre j ec t ed the cont ent i on thata s ho rt er s e nt e nc e w oul d be appr opr i a t e . F i f th, the s e nt e nc e i s w i thi n the gui de l i ne s r a nge a nd, a l though i ti s notpr e s um e d t o be r e a s onabl e , i ti s a tl e a s te xpe c t e d t o be re as on abl e. W e f in d n o b a s is f

o rs e ttin g a s id e ap p e lla n t’s s e n te n c e . I t is th e r e f o r e d u e to4

b e, an d i s, AF F I R ME D.