FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 1, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 0- 14 52 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cr-1 40 57 -KMM -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ANGEL A

NTONIO CRUZ-MARTINEZ, 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 uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

(J ul y 1, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ang el Cru z-M art in ez ap pe al s h is 30 -m on th to ta l s en te nc e im po se d a fte r pl ead in g g ui lt y

to on e co un t o f m ak in g afal se st at em en t i n a n app li cat io n fo r a Uni te d S ta te s p as sp ort, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 15 42 (“ Co un t 1 ”), an d o ne co un t o f ag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 28 A(a)(1 ) (“ Co un t 3” ). The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edCru z-M art in ez t o 6 m on th s as to Co un t 1 , and24
m on th s as to Co un t 3 , to be serve d c on se cu ti ve ly. On ap pe al , Cru z-M art in ez arg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e was pro cedur al ly andsubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se (1 ) th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t s pe ci fic al ly m en ti on 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a), i ts pu rp os es , or h ow i t ap pl ie d t he st atut e; an d (2 ) hi s s en te nc e was gre at er t han ne ces sa ry to im pl em en t t he go al s o f § 3 55 3( a), s pe ci fic al ly tho se rel at in g t o the
se rio us ne ss of t he off

en se , bec au se bo th off

en se s ar os e fro m

th e sa m e co nduc t. W e rev ie w a fin al sen te nc e im po se d b y a di st ric t co urt fo r rea so nabl en es s un de r a d efer en ti al ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard
. Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38 , 41 , 12 8 S .Ct. 5 86 , 59 1, 1 69 L.Ed.2d44 5 (2 00 7) . The d is tri ctco urt m us t im po se a se nt en ce t ha t i s “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er t ha n n eces sa ry to co m pl y wit h th e p ur po se s” li st edin § 3 55 3( a)(2 ), in cl ud in g t he ne edto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of th e o ffen 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 of fen se , det er cr im in al co nduc t, 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, an d p ro vi de th e d efen da ntwit h n eed ededuc at io na l o r vo cat io na l
2tra in in g o r m ed ic al care . Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). In i m po si ng a pa rti cu la r se nt en ce, t he co urt m

us t al so co ns id er t he na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se , th e h is to ry

an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt , th e k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e, th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge , th e p ert in en t p ol ic y st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on , th e n eedto av oi d u nwa nt edsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s, an d t he ne edto pr ov id e res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. Id . §§ 35 53 (a)( 1) , (3) -(7 ). The d is tri ctco urt d oe s no t h av e to di sc us s ea ch § 3 55 3( a) fa ct orso lo ng as t he reco rdin di cat es th atit
co ns id eredth e fac to rs inso m e fo rm . Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Do rma n , 48 8 F .3d93 6, 94 4 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 7) (“ no th in g i n Boo ker or e ls ewh ere r equi res th e d is tri ctco urt t o st at e o n the reco rdth atitha s ex pl ic it ly con si de redeach of t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s o r to di sc us s ea ch of t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s” ). A sen te nc e is subs tant iv el y reas on ab le if i t ac hi ev es th e p ur po se s o f
se nt en ci ng as e nu m erat edin § 3 55 3( a). Uni te d Sta te s v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . This Co urt m ay rev ers e if

itis lef t wi th th e d efi ni te an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n wei gh in g th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Uni te d Sta te s v. Pu gh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 91 (11 th Cir
. 20 08 ). Ind ic iaof s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss in cl ud e b ei ng wit hi n t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge , Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88 , andth e se nt en ce’s rel at io n t o t he ap pl ic ab le st atut ory

m ax im um , Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F .3d13 19 ,

313 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (co ns id eri ng th atde fen da nt ’s sen te nc e was well be lo w th e

st atut ory m ax im um in fin di ng th e se nt en ce s ub st an ti ve ly reaso nabl e). The ap pe ll an t ca rri es th e b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g asen te nc e is un reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e rec or d andth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88
. Cru z-M art in ez’s s en te nc e is reas on ab le . Alth ou gh itdi d n otsp eci fic al ly ci te th em , th e rec or d s ho ws t ha t t he di st ric t co urt co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Se e Dor man , 48 8 F .3dat 9 44 -4 5 (f in di ng sen te nc e rea so nabl e al th ou gh di st ric t
co urt d idno t arti cu la te th atitha d c on si de red§ 3 55 3( a) b ecau se itco ns id ered de fen da nt ’s ob

jecti on s an d m ot io n fo r do wnwar d d ep artur e th atim pl ic at edth e fact or s) . The Co urt en su redth atitwas app lying th e co rrec t g ui de li ne s ra ng e, an d th e p art ie s p res en te d arg um en ts as t o t he ap pr op ria te sen te nc e th atim pl ic at ed § 3 55 3( a). Fu rth er, the sen te nc e was wit hi n t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge , and
su ch sen te nc es are o rd in ari ly exp ect edto be reas on ab le
. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88
. Cru z-M art in ez re cei ve d ast atut or il y m an da te d s en te nc e o f 2 years as t o C ou nt3,
an d h is 6-mont h s en te nc e as to Co un t 1 was wel l b el ow t he 10 -y ear m ax im um se nt en ce p erm it te d. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8A( a)(1 ); 1 8 U.S.C. § 15 42 ; se e a ls o Gon za le z , 55 0 F .3dat 1 32 4. Whil e Cru z-M art in ez ar gu es th atbo th of h is
se nt en ces ari se fro m

th e sa m e co nduc t, t hi s d oe s n otm ean th athi s s en te nc e is
un reas on ab le . The p en al ty statut e, 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8A, re qu ire d t he di st ric t co urt 4to im

po se co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc es , andCru z-M art in ez h as no t co nc lu si ve ly sho wn th atco m m is si on of b ot h o ffen se s re su lt s i n t he same harm . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e se nt en ce as reas on ab le
. AFFIRMED.

5