[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-10395

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20604-KMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEONARD DARRAL WELSH, 

a.k.a. Leonardo Martinez,

a.k.a. DeCastro Enrique,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 2, 2013)

Before CARNES, Chief Judge, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-10395 Date Filed: 08/02/2013 Page: 1 of 7 
2

Leonard Welsh appeals his sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment, imposed 

at the low end of the applicable guideline range of 27 to 33 months’ imprisonment, 

after he pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(a), (b)(2). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Welsh’s sentence.

On appeal, Welsh argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable 

because the district court failed to afford significant weight to the mitigating 

factors in his case, specifically, his past military service, his rehabilitation after 

returning to the United States, and his community service. He further argues that, 

based on the mitigating factors in his case, his case fell outside the “heartland of 

the guidelines,” such that the court should have imposed a sentence below the 

applicable guideline range. He contends that he was entitled to a downward 

departure or variance based on his cultural assimilation to the United States when 

he was a child, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment. (n.8). Welsh also asserts 

that his applicable guideline range was substantially enhanced due to his criminal 

history, pursuant to § 2L1.2(b). According to Welsh, the district court applied the 

Guidelines in a mandatory fashion when it determined that a downward variance 

was not warranted on the basis that his criminal history outweighed the mitigating 

factors present in his case, as all defendants subject to an enhancement under 

§ 2L1.2(b) had criminal histories. Welsh argues that, by “rigidly adhering to the 

guidelines in the face of substantial mitigating evidence,” the district court 

Case: 13-10395 Date Filed: 08/02/2013 Page: 2 of 7 
3

imposed a sentence that was greater than necessary to achieve the statutory

concerns set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of 

discretion standard of review. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 

586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). A district court’s sentence need not be the most 

appropriate one, but rather need only be a reasonable one. United States v. Irey, 

612 F.3d 1160, 1191 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We may set aside a sentence only 

if we determine, after giving a full measure of deference to the sentencing judge, 

that the sentence imposed truly is unreasonable. Id. The party challenging the 

sentence has the burden of establishing that the sentence was unreasonable based 

on the record and the factors set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Talley, 431 

F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). Further, we ordinarily expect a sentence imposed 

within the applicable guideline range to be reasonable. Id. 

In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we first consider whether the 

district court committed a procedural error, such as treating the Guidelines as 

mandatory or failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 

S.Ct. at 597. After we have determined that a sentence is procedurally sound, we

review a sentence’s substantive reasonableness by examining the totality of the 

circumstances, which includes an inquiry into whether the § 3553(a) factors 

support the sentence in question. United States v. Gonzales, 550 F.3d 1319, 1323-

Case: 13-10395 Date Filed: 08/02/2013 Page: 3 of 7 
4

24 (11th Cir. 2008). The district court must impose a sentence sufficient, but not 

greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes listed in § 3553(a)(2), 

including the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the 

law, provide just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect 

the public from the defendant’s future criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

In imposing a particular sentence, the court must also consider the nature and 

circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the 

kinds of sentences available, the applicable guideline range, the pertinent policy 

statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted 

sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7). We do not substitute our own judgment for that of the 

district court in weighing the relevant sentencing factors absent a clear error of 

judgment. See United States v. Early, 686 F.3d 1219, 1223 (11th Cir. 2012). 

Further, a district court is not required to articulate its consideration of each 

individual § 3553(a) factor. United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256, 1262 (11th 

Cir. 2010). 

A district court may grant a downward departure on the basis of a 

defendant’s cultural assimilation under certain circumstances. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2, comment. (n.8). Additionally, a district court may depart from the 

applicable guideline range, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, if there exists a 

Case: 13-10395 Date Filed: 08/02/2013 Page: 4 of 7 
5

mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into 

consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the Guidelines. 

U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(a)(1); see United States v. Gibson, 434 F.3d 1234, 1253 (11th 

Cir. 2006). However, unless the district court incorrectly believed that it lacked 

the authority to grant a downward departure, we have no jurisdiction to review the 

district court’s decision declining to downwardly depart. See United States v. 

Dudley, 463 F.3d 1221, 1228 (11th Cir. 2006). Where nothing in the record 

indicates otherwise, we assume that the district court understood that it had the 

authority to depart downward. Id. 

Here, Welsh appears to argue that the district court should have departed 

downward based on the mitigating circumstances in his case, pursuant to § 5K2.0, 

and he argues that the court should have departed downward based on his cultural 

assimilation, pursuant to § 2L1.2, comment. (n.8). We lack jurisdiction to review 

the district court’s decision not to downwardly depart because there is nothing in 

the record to suggest that the court was ignorant of its authority to grant a 

downward departure, pursuant to those guideline provisions. See id. 

Further, the district court did not treat the Guidelines as mandatory, such that 

Welsh’s sentence is procedurally unreasonable. Before determining that a sentence 

within the applicable guideline range was warranted, the district court properly 

considered the § 3553(a) factors, Welsh’s guideline range, which the court 

Case: 13-10395 Date Filed: 08/02/2013 Page: 5 of 7 
6

specifically acknowledged was advisory, and the parties’ statements concerning 

whether a variance was warranted. Thus, no procedural error occurred on this 

basis. Next, Welsh’s sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment, which was imposed at 

the low end of the applicable guideline range of 27 to 33 months’ imprisonment, is 

substantively reasonable. As Welsh’s sentence is within the applicable guideline 

range, we expect this sentence to be reasonable. See Talley, 431 F.3d at 788. The 

record demonstrates that the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors in 

imposing his sentence, and there is nothing in the record demonstrating that the 

total sentence is unreasonable based on those factors. The district court 

specifically stated that Welsh’s military service was “deserving of special 

consideration” and stated that it considered the parties’ statements, which indicates 

that it considered Welsh’s argument for a downward variance based on his postoffense rehabilitation, community service, and cultural assimilation, as well as the 

government’s argument that, in light of Welsh’s criminal history, a guideline 

sentence was appropriate. The court determined that an appropriate sentence was 

at the low end of the guideline range. We do not substitute our own judgment for 

that of the district court in weighing the relevant sentencing factors absent a clear 

error of judgment, which Welsh has not shown here. See Early, 686 F.3d at 1223. 

In light of Welsh’s substantial criminal history, he has not shown that a sentence 

imposed below his applicable guideline range was warranted. Accordingly, Welsh 

Case: 13-10395 Date Filed: 08/02/2013 Page: 6 of 7 
7

has not shown that the district court’s decision to impose a sentence of 27 months’ 

imprisonment was unreasonable. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Welsh’s 

sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-10395 Date Filed: 08/02/2013 Page: 7 of 7