FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 23, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT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- 13 23 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cr-0 00 03 -WCO-SSC-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us BACILIO HERNANDEZ-GUEVARA, 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 North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 23 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, BARKETT andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Bac il io Hern an de z-Gu ev ara app eal s h is 48 -m on thsen te nc e an d $ 10 00 fin e im po se d fo r il le ga ll y

re-e nt eri ng th e Uni te d S ta te s af te r ha vi ng be ende po rte d a s anag gr av at edfel on , 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a) an d (b )(2 ). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we af firm . On ap pe al , Hern an de z-Gu ev ara a rg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e p ro cedur al ly is un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto ex pl ai n i ts reas on s fo r im po si ng th e se nt en ce o r to st at e th atitha d c on si de redhi s ar gu m en ts an d t he fact or s s et fo rth in18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Bec au se he di d n otob ject t o t he pro cedur al reas on ab le ne ss of h is sen te nc e, we rev ie w on ly for p la inerro r. See Un it edSta te s v. Ro dr ig ue z, 39 8 F .3d12 91 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). A sen te nc e m ay be pr oc edur al ly unr eas on ab le if t he di st ric t co urt fa il s t o c on si de r th e fac to rs setforth in sec ti on 35 53 (a) o r to ex pl ai n a de qu at el y th e ch os ensen te nc e. Uni te d S ta te s v . 1 Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3d13 19 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The d is tri ctco urt, h owe ve r, is no t re qu ire d t o d is cu ss or t o s ta te each fact orex pl ic it ly. Id. a t 1 32 4. Tha t the di stric t co urt co ns id eredHern an de z-Gu ev ara’s ar gu m en ts an d t he se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s i n i m po si ng hi s s en te nc e is cle ar fro m th e rec or d. Atth e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e co urt s ta te d tha t the sen te nc e was reas on ab le inth e li gh t o f th e “ ci rcu m st an ces of t he cas e” an d Herna nd ez-Gu ev ara’s “pr io r [cri m in al ] reco rd ,” an d n ot edth atth e se nt en ce was at t he lo w endof t he gu id el in e ran ge . Under section 3553(a ), a district c ourt must consider the nature a nd circ umstances of

the 1 offe nse, the history

and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt, the need f

or the sente nce to provide adequate deter

renc e, re spect for

the law, a

nd protec tion of the public, the def endant’ s medical and educ ational nee ds, the advisory guideline ra

ng e, the Sentenc ing Commission’s policy statements, and the ne ed to avoid unwa rra nted sentenc ing dispa

rities and provide restitution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) -(7) . 2Thu s, the sen te nc e expr es sl y co ns id eredth e n atur e an d c irc um st an ces of t he of fen se , th e d efen da nt ’s hi st ory an d c ha ract eri st ic s, an d t he advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1) , (4) . The co urt’s co ns id erat io n o f Hern an de zGue vara’s cri m in al reco rdals o i m pl ic at edth e n eedforth e se nt en ce i m po se d t o pr om ot e res pe ctforth e law, affo rdad equa te de te rren ce, an d p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m furth er cr im es . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 2) . Thu s, Hern an de z-Gu ev ara h as fai le d t o d em on st rat e th atth e d is tri ctco urt p la in ly erred . Hern an de z-Gu ev ara a ls o a rg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e subs ta nt iv el y is un reas on ab le be cau se th e co urt fa il edto co ns id er p ro pe rly vari ou s m it ig at in g fact or s. We eval ua te th e subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e und er a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 5 97 (2 00 7) . The p arty

ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th at th e se nt en ce i s unr eas on ab le inth e li gh t o f bo th th e rec or d a ndth e se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fact or s. Un it edSta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e co nc lu de th atHern an de z-Gu ev ara f ai le d t o s at is fy

hi s b ur de n o f pr oo f. Fi rs t, h is 48 -m on th sen te nc e is at t he lo w endof the 46 to 57 -m on thadvi so ry gu id el in e se nt en ce ra ng e; an d we o rd in ari ly exp ectsu cha se nt en ce t o b e reas on ab le . See i d. at78 7- 88 (co nc lu di ng th at , alt ho ug h n otpe r se reas on ab le ,

“ or di na ril y

we wou ldex pe cta se nt en ce wi th in th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e to be 3reas on ab le ”). His sen te nc e is als o wel l b el ow the 20 -y ear s ta tu to ry m ax im um se nt en ce fo r hi s o ffen se . See Go nz al ez, 5 50 F.3dat 1 32 4 (c on cl ud in g t ha t the reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e m ay als o b e in di cat edwhen th e se nt en ce i m po se d was well be lo w th e st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e). Giv enHern an de z-Gu ev ara’s p rio r cri min al reco rd-- in cl ud in g c on vi ct io ns fo r sm ug gl in g a li en s, driv in g u nd er the in flu en ce, an d s im pl e b at te ry , whi ch res ul te d i n t wo ea rli er d ep orta ti on s -- a se nt en ce wi th in th e g ui de li ne ran ge was ne ed edto pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, to pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t, an d t o d et er hi m fro m furth er cr im in al act iv it y . Alth ou gh he ass ert s t ha t the co urt fa il edto co ns id er p ro pe rly vari ou s m it ig at in g fa ct or s, the weig htto be gi ve n apa rti cu la r fact or is lef t t o t he so un d d is cret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt, ab se nta cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Pug h, 5 15 F.3d11 79 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Bec au se we se e n o s uc h e rro r, Hern an de z-Gu ev ara f ai le d t o d em on st rat e th athi s se nt en ce was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . Hern an de z-Gu ev ara a ls o a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredwhen itord ered hi m to pa y a fi ne an d fa il edto di sc us s t he fact or s s etou t i n U.S.S.G. § 5E1 .2 i n se tt in g t he am ou ntof t he fin e. Inpa rti cu la r, he co nt en ds th atth e co urt d idno t co ns id er ad equa te ly his un em pl oym en t, l ackof “ di sc ern ab le sk il ls ,” la ck of a ss et s,

4an d h is rol e as th e so le pro vi de r fo r hi s wi fe, ch il dr en , fathe r, an d g ran dp aren ts . 2

W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to im po se a fi ne forcle ar erro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Rowl an d, 9 06 F.2d62 1, 6 23 (11 thCir . 19 90 ). The Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s re qu ire a fi ne inall cas es un le ss “ th e d efen da ntest ab li sh es th athe is un ab le to pa y

an d i s n otli ke ly to b eco m e ab le to pa y an y fin e.” U.S.S.G. § 5E1 .2(a ). If th e d efen da ntsat is fie s t hi s b ur de n o f pr oo f, orpro ve s tha t the fin e wou ldha ve anun du e b ur de n o n h is de pe nd en ts , th e co urt m ay waiv e th e fi ne or im po se a fi ne be lo w th e g ui de li ne ran ge . U.S.S.G. § 5E1 .2(e ). Once th e co urt co nc lu de s t ha t a f

in e is ap pr op ria te , itm

us t co ns id er s ev eral fact or s i n s et ti ng th e am ou ntof t he fin e, in cl ud in g t he fol lo win g fa ct or s re le va ntto th is ap pe al : (1 ) th e ne edfor th e se nt en ce t o re fle ctth e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se , pro m ot e res pe ctfor th e la w, pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t, an d a ffo rdad equa te de te rren ce; (2) th e de fen da nt ’s abi li ty to p ay th e fi ne ; (3 ) th e b ur de n t he fin e wou ldpl ace o n the de fen da nt ’s dep en de nt s; an d (4 ) an y co ll at eral co ns eque nc es of c on vi ct io n. U.S.S.G. § 5 E1.2 (d ). The d is tri ctco urt i s n otrequi redto m ak e sp eci fic fin di ng s on each of t he se fact or s s o l on g a s “ th e rec or d c on ta in s s uf fic ie ntin fo rm at io n wi th res pe ctto th e . . . facto rs to pe rm itus to fin d t ha t [i t] di d n otcle arl y err i n Contrary to Herna ndez-Gueva

ra’ s assertions that he la cks “disce rnible skills” and is the 2 sole provider

for his fa mily , the re cord de monstrates that he ha s been suc cessf ully self-e mploy ed as a musician a

nd artist and that his wife w orks at a poultry plant. 5im

po si ng or i n s et ti ng th e am ou ntof t he fin e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Lom ba rd o, 3 5 F.3 d 5 26 , 53 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) . Eve n i f we as su m e -- b as edon hi s cu rren t u ne m pl oym en t, l ackof a ss et s, an d u se of app oi nt edco un se l -- th atHern an de z-Gu ev ara i s p res en tl y un ab le to 3 pa y a fi ne , he d idno t s at is fy

hi s b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th athe wou ldbe un ab le to pa y a fi ne inth e fu ture. Fi rs t, h e d idno t o bjec t t o t he co nc lu si on inth e Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n R ep ort (“ PSI” ) -- ad op te d b y th e d is tri ctco urt -- th at , al th ou gh he was u nabl e to pa y a fi ne withi n the gu id el in e ran ge , “ he m ay be ab le to co nt rib ut e to warda fi ne whi le in carc erat ed .” See Un it edSta te s v . W ad e, 45 8 4 F.3 d 1 27 3, 1 27 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (co nc lu di ng th ata de fen dantwho “ fai l[s ] to ob ject t o a ll eg at io ns of f

actinth e PSI a dm it s t ho se fact s fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es ”). Inad di ti on , alt ho ug h h e te st ifi edat t he sen te nc in g h eari ng th athe gr ew up ina po orvi ll ag e an d o wne d aho us e worth on ly $50 0 i n M ex ic o, tha t h e ha s b eena se lf- em

pl oyed m us ic ia n andart is t fo r m os t o f hi s l ife , recen tl y earn in g

That a de fenda

nt is repre sented by

appointed counse l is considered a “significant 3 indicator” of his prese nt inability to pay a fine . U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2, comment. (n.3). The g overnme nt conce des that the district cour t relied on the mistaken be lief that 4 Her nandez-Gue vara

would be ableto ear

n money in a prison work program, notingthat alien criminal def

endants a re not e ligible f

or such pr ograms. B eca

use He rnande z-Guevar a did not raise that issue on appea l, however , it is abandoned. See United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004). 6be twee n $ 15 00 an d $ 20 00 pe r m on th was e vi de nc ed .

Bec au se th e PSI c on ta in edin fo rm at io n re le va ntto th e se ct io n 5 E1.2 (d ) fact or s, an d t he di st ric t co urt re vi eweditbe fo re s en te nc in g, “ we in fer wi th ou t he si ta ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredth e p ert in en t fa ct or s p rio r to im po si ng th e fi ne ,” an d i t was no t re qu ire d t o e xp res sl y ad dr es s ea chon e. See Un it edSta te s v. Kh awaja, 11 8 F .3d14 54 , 14 59 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ); Lo m ba rd o, 3 5 F .3dat 5 30 . For in st an ce, the PSI i nc lu de d i nf orm at io n abo utHern an de z-Gu ev ara’s cr im in al hi st ory , edu cat io n, em

pl oym en t h is to ry , fin an ci al co nd it io n, d ep en de nt s, an d po ss ib le de po rta ti on fol lo win g h is im pr is on m en t. Inth e li gh t o f th es e fac to rs , th e di st ric t co urt i m

po se d afin e o f on ly $10 00 , whi chwas wel l b el ow the gu id el in es ran ge of $ 75 00 to $7 5,0 00 . Alth ou gh th is fin e wil l n o d oubtbu rd enHern an de zGue vara, the Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es pro vi de th at“ [t]he am ou ntof t he fin e sh ou ld al way s b e su ffi ci en t t o e ns ur e th atth e fi ne . . . is pu ni ti ve .” U.S.S.G. § 5 E1.2 (d ). W e se e n o c le ar erro r. AFFIR MED.

7