FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 13, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 07- 10747 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -003 92 -C R -01-JO F -1 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 U B A L D O L U N A - R O M A N , 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 o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 13, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an dM A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: U b al d o L u n a-R o m an , an al i en p rev i o u sl y d ep o rt edfro m th e U n i t edS t at es,2

p l e a d e dg u i l tyt o i l l e g a l l yr e e n t e r i n g th e c o u n try , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U . S. C. §§ 1326( a ) a nd ( b) . L una - R om a n f a c e d a n e nha nc e d S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge of 70 t o 8 7 m on ths on ac coun tof tw o p ri or conv i ct i on s. T he di stri ctcourt se nt ence d L un a- R om an t o serve 65 m on ths i n p ri son. O n app ea l , L un a- R om an ar gu es thathi s bel ow -G ui del i nes s ent ence w as un re as on abl e bec ause the di stri ct c o u rt “d idn o t g iv e ap p r o p r ia te w e ig h t” to r e le v a n t s e n te n c in g f a c to r s c o n ta in e din 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , i nc l udi ng hi s pe r s ona l c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s a nd f a m i l yt i e s t o the U ni t ed S t at es , w hi ch com pel l ed hi s i l l egal re entry , or t o the “ abse nce of cr i m i nal cond uctl ea di ng up t o h i s arr es t . ” L un a- R om an al so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt shou l d h ave s ho rt ened hi s s ent ence t o acc ou ntfor tho se l es se r s ent ence s thatar e i m po se d for si m i l arm i sc on du cti n d i stri ct s i n w hi ch the D epartm entof Just i ce has es t abl i shed earl y di sposi t i on or “ fa st -tra ck” program s. S ho rt eni ng hi s s ent ence , L un a- R om an ar gu es , w ou l d h ave helped t o al l evi at e “ un w arrant ed se nt ence di spar i t i es ” und er§ 3 55 3(a) (6). W e app l y the defer ent i al st andard of rea sonabl enes s t o the fi nal se nt ence , focusi ng ou r a tt ent i on on the fa ct ors s etforth i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . U ni t ed S t at es v. M art i n, 45 5 F . 3d 12 27 , 12 37 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). T he § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors i ncl ud 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 s t orya nd ch aract eri st i cs o f th e d efen d an t ; (2 ) th e n eedt o refl ectth e seri o u sn ess3

o f th e o ffen se, t o p ro m o t e resp ectfo r th e l aw , an dt 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 ; ( 3 ) th e n e e df

o rd e te rr e n c e ; ( 4 ) th e n e e dto prot ec tthe pu bl i c; (5) the need t o p rovi de the defendantw i th n ee ded e duc a t i ona l orvoc a t i ona l tr a i ni ng orm e di c a l c a r e ; ( 6) the ki nds of s e nt e nc e s a va i l abl e ; ( 7) the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge ; ( 8) pe rt i ne nt p o lic ys ta te m e n ts o f

th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n ; ( 9 ) th e n e e dto a voi d unw a nt e d s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i t i e s ; a nd ( 10) the ne e d t o pr ovi de rest i tu t i o n t o v i ct i m s. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 786 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( s um m a r i z i ng 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt n e e dn o t e x p lic itlys ta te o n th e r e c o r dth a t it h a s c o n s i d e r e de a c h f

a c t o r . No rn e e dth e c o u rtd i s c u s s e a c h i n d i v i du a l f a c t o r . An ac k n o w led g m en t b y th e d istrict co u rt th at ith as co n sid er ed th e d ef en d an t’ s arg u m en t s an dth e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors w i l l su ffi ce. Id . A b sen tsu ch an ex p ress a c know l e dgm e nt , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s t a t e m e nt s ove rthe e nt i r e s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng m a yi ndi c a t e tha tthe c ourta de qua t e l yw e i ghe d the s t a tut oryf a c t or s a nd the d e f e n d a n t’s a r g u m e n ts . S e e U n ite dS ta te s v . D o rm a n , 4 8 8 F .3 d9 3 6 , 9 4 4 - 4 5 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2007) ; s e e a l s o R i t av. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 551 U . S . ___, 127 S . C t . 2456, 2468, 168 L .E d .2 d2 0 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ( n o tin g th a t th e “s e n te n c in g ju d g e s h o u lds e t f o rth e n o u g h to sat i sfy th e ap p el l at e co u rtth ath e h as co n si d ered th e p art i es’ arg u m en t s an dh as a r e a s o n e db a s is f

o re x e r c is in g h is o w n le g a l d e c is io n m a k in g au th o r ity ” ) . A dd i t i on al l y, w e m aycom pare the se nt ence ac tual l y i m po se d t o the st atut ory m axi m um i n the re as on abl enes s r evi ew proces s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. W i ni ng ear,4

4 2 2 F .3 d1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g th a t th e s e n te n c e is unr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof the r e c or d a nd the s e f

a c t or s r e s t s on the pa rtyc ha l l e ngi ng th e s e n te n c e . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 da t 7 8 8 . I n thi s c a s e , the di s tr i c tc ourtc orr e c t l yc a l c ul a t e d the G ui de l i ne s r a nge a nd h e a r da r g u m e n ts f

r o m b o th p a rtie s o n th e ap p r o p r ia te f a c to r s to c o n s id e rin s e n te n c in g L u n a - R o m a n . W h ile th e c o u rt d idn o t e x p lic itlya c k n o w le d g e th a t it had con si dere d the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, the court ’ s s t at em ent s over the ent i re s e n te n c in g h e a r in g n e v e rth e le s s in d ic a te th a t th e c o u rt a f f o r d e da d e q u a te consi dera t i on t o these fa ct ors and t o L un a- R om an’ s argum ent s. F i nal l y, the di stri ct c ourt ’ s f i ndi ng tha tthe c l a i m e d “ f a s t - tr a c k” di s pa r i t i e s w e r e i rr e l e va ntt o the pu rposes of § 3 55 3(a) (6) w as consi st entw i th the l aw of thi s C i rc ui t . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. C as tro, 45 5 F . 3d 12 49 , 12 53 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). A s are sul t , L un a- R om an has f ai l ed t o m ee thi s burden o f e st abl i shi ng that h i s sen t en ce w as u n reaso n ab l e. T h e j u d g m en to f th e d i stri ctco u rti s AF F I RME D.