F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT Oc tob er 28, 2 008 THO MAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---

No. 0 7- 12 88 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 10 7- CR-F TM-2 9- DNF UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JUAN MARC OS BUENAVENTU RA, a.k .a. Ju anM. Bu en ab en tu ra, 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 Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----

(Oc to ber 2 8, 2 00 8) Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, HULL andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t Jua n M arco s B ue na ve ntur a ap pe al s h is 96 -m on th se nt en ce fo r il le ga l re en try by anali enpre vi ou sl y

de po rte d a s an ag gr av at edfel on ,in vi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6( a), (b )(2 ). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we

affi rm . Defen da ntpl edgu il ty to the cri m e ch arg edina on e-co un t i nd ic tm en t. Bec au se Defen da ntha d 1 3 c riminal hi st ory po in ts , th e p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep ort (“ PSI” ) as si gn edDefen danta cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of VI. An d b ecau se Defen da ntha d b een de po rte d p rev io us ly from th e Uni te d S ta te s af

te r ha vi ng be en co nv ic te d fo r a fel on y

th atis a cri m e o f vi ol en ce, a 1 6- le ve l i nc reas e in hi s o ffen se le ve l was ap pl ie d p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2(b )(1 )(A)(i i). Th e PSI ca lc ul at ed Defen da nt ’s gu id el in es ran ge to be 77 to 96 m on th s; th e st atut ory m ax im um term of im pr is on m en t was 20 y ears . Defen da ntm ad e n o o bjec ti on s t o t he PSI o r th e gu id el in es cal cu la ti on . Defen da nt ’s arg um en t o n app eal is th atth e d is tri ctco urt i m po se d a subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le sen te nc e in th e li gh t o f th e se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Acco rd in g t o Def

en da nt , th e d is tri ctco urt o ve rem ph as iz edhi s p as t cr im in al hi st ory , fai le d t o c on si de r m it ig at in g e vi de nc e, im po se d asen te nc e g reat er tha n ne ces sa ry an d g reat er tha n i s i m

po se d t y pi cal ly on s im il arl y -s itua te d i ll eg al reen tra nt s. Defen da nt ’s cla im

th atth e se nt en ce i m

po se d i s u nr eas on ab le fai ls . App el la te rev ie w of t he subs tant iv e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e -- wh ethe r in si de 2orou ts id e th e g ui de li ne s rang e -- i s u nd er an ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Gall v.

Uni te d S ta te s, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 5 97 (20 07 ). Thi s re vi ew is de fere nt ia l; an d “ th e pa rty who c ha ll en ge s t he sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le in th e li gh t o f bo th [th e] reco rdan d t he fact or s i n s ect io n 35 53 (a).” Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 Cir . 20 05 ). Even if a n th ap pe ll at e co urt d is ag rees with t he weig htth e d is tri ctco urt af fo rd edth e se ct io n 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, we wi ll rev ers e o nl y if t he fin al sen te nc e im

po se d l ie s o ut si de th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es . See Un it edSta te s v . McBri de , 51 1 F .3d12 93 , 12 97 -9 8 (1 1 Cir . 20 07 ).

th Defen da ntfoc us es esp eci al ly on t he di st ric t co urt’s fa il ur e to im po se a lo wen d g ui de li ne s ra ng e se nt en ce i n t he li gh t o f th e fac t t ha t h is cri m in al hi st ory po in ts -- 1 3 -- were the ba re m in im um requi redto tri gg er cr im in al hi st ory cat eg ory VI st atus . See U.S.S.G. Ch . 5, Pt . A. (s en te nc in g t ab le ). Bu t t he di st ric t co urt co ns id eredan d re

jecte d m it ig at io n b as edonth is arg um en t b ecau se Defen dant ’s reco rdev id en cedot he r un sc or edco nv ic ti on s: po ss es si on of ash ort-b arre ll ed sh ot gu n, ev ad in g arres t, an d a ss au ltwith b od il y in jury. Defen da nt ’s pro te st at io ns to th e co nt rary not wit hs tand in g, the di st ric t co urt ex pl ai ne d a de qu at el y why itwas unpe rs ua de d t ha t Def

en da nt ’s cri m in al hi st ory po in ts supp orte d alo w-en d se nt en ce. 3Norare we o th erwi se pe rs ua de d b y Defen da nt ’s sec ti on 35 53 (a) c la im s. No requi rem en t ex is ts th atth e d is tri ctco urt arti cu la te ex pl ic it ly its reas on in g at te nd in g t he weig htacco rd edth e fac to rs in th e se nt en ci ng co m pl ex ; “ [r]ath er, an ackno wled ge m en t b y

th e d is tri ctco urt t ha t i t h as co ns id eredth e d efen dant ’s arg um en ts an d t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s wi ll su ffi ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Boh an no n, 47 6 F .3d12 46 , 12 48 (11 Cir .), cert . den ie d, 1 27 S.Ct . 29 53 (20 07 ). th The tra ns cri ptof t he sen te nc in g h eari ng m ak es itcle ar tha t t he di st ric t co urt co ns id eredth e se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Th e d is tri ctco urt ad op te d the factua l st at em en ts co nt ai ne d i n the PSI an d n ot edth atDefen da nt ’s cri m in al hi st ory sp an ne d fr om

19 81 to th e p res en t. Alt ho ug h -- as De fen da ntarg ue s -- a pe rio d ex is te d b etween19 81 an d a nd19 94 du rin g wh ic h n o c riminal hi st ory po in ts accrue d, t he PSI re fle ct eda co ns is te ntpa tt ernof o ffen se s -- m an y of wh ic h in cl ud edba tt ery -- fro m

19 94 th ro ug h 2 00 6, wh enDefen da ntwas a rres te d o n drug -tr affi ck in g c harg es . The PSI als o s etou t Def en dant ’s reco rdof m

ul ti pl e il le ga l re en tri es in to th e Uni te d S ta te s. Th e d is tri ctco urt h eard-- b utwas unpe rs ua de d b y

-- Defen da nt ’s arg um en t t ha t h is 20 May 200 2 c on vi ct io n fo r fi rs t de gr ee b ur gl ary whi le arm edan d fo r res is ti ng anoff ic er wi th vi ol en ce (t he co nv ic ti on th attri gg eredU.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(A)(i i)’s 1 6- le ve l i nc reas e) m or e ap pr op ria te ly sho ul d b e v ie wedas a“ do m es ti c rel at edin ci de nt .” The d is tri ct 4co urt s ta te d e xp res sl y th atitha d c on si de redth e PSI a ndth e se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fact or s, h adde te rm in edth ata wit hi n- gu id el in es sen te nc e was ap pr op ria te , and co ns id eredth e se nt en ce i m po se d t o b e su ffi ci en t -- bu t n otgre at er tha n n eces sa ry - - to ach ie ve th e p ur

po se s o f se nt en ci ng as s ta te d i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a). The reco rdrefl ect s tha t t he di st ric t co urt co ns id eredDefen da nt ’s arg um en ts an d h ada reas on edba si s fo r ex erci si ng it s o wn l eg al de ci si on m ak in g aut ho rit y . W e can no t s ay

th e 9 6- m on th withi n- gu id el in es sen te nc e im po se d was “ ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 4 56 F.3d13 53 , 13 63 (11 Cir . 20 06 ), cert . di sm is se d 1 27 S.Ct . 30 40 th (2 00 7) , abr og at edon othe r gr ou nd s Ki m br ou gh v. Un it edSta te s, 1 28 S.Ct . 55 8 (2 00 7) . No ab us e o f di sc ret io n h as be ensh own . AFFIR MED.

5