[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 16 07 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cr-0 02 61 -SCJ -RGV-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us AGUSTIN HERNANDE Z CRUZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l 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 forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 27 , 20 12 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, JOR DAN andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: App el la ntAgu st in Hern an de z Cru z (“ Cru z”) app eal s h is 46 m on th sen te nc e Case: 11-16075 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 1 of 6im

po se d a fte r pl ead in g g ui lt y to on e co un t o f il le ga l re -en try of a p rev io us ly de po rte d a li en , in vi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6( a) an d (b )(2 ). He arg ue s o n app eal th athi s 4 6 m on th sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Sp eci fic al ly, he arg ue s t ha t h is pre di cat e dru g o ffen se was o ve r te n years o ld , andth eref

or e st al e, an d t ha t i t was erro r fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o app ly th e 1 6- le ve l i nc reas e u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(A)(i ) wit ho utm it ig at io n; th at th ere wer e su ffi ci en t g ro un ds form it ig at io n andth e d is tri ctco urt p la cedun du e weig htonde te rren ce; an d t ha t the di st ric t co urt re fu se d t o c on si de r hi s fi ve week Im m ig rat io n a ndCu st om s En fo rcem en t (“ ICE”) c us to dy for § 35 53 (a) p ur po se s. Inrev ie win g asen te nc e fo r subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s, we co ns id er the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces 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. Uni te d Sta te s , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 , 59 7, 1 69 L. Ed. 2d44 5 (2 00 7) . Whi le a se nt en ce wi th inth e g ui de li ne ran ge is no t p res um pt iv el y reas on ab le , we ord in ari ly exp ectitto be reas on ab le . Uni te d Sta te s v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F.3 d 7 84 , 78 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . The p art y who ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce b ears th e bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g t ha t t he sen te nc e is un reas on ab le in li gh t o f bo th th e rec or d an d t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Id. Once a di st ric t co urt h as ap pl ie d t he pro pe r gu id el in e ran ge , we wil l v acat e th e se nt en ce i f, an d o nl y if, ‘“ we are l eftwit h t he de fin it e 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 2 Case: 11-16075 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 2 of 6jud gm en t i n wei gh in g the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s b y arri vi ng at asen te nc e th atli es 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 Sta te s v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ) (quo ti ng Uni te d Sta te s v. Pu gh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 08 )), cer t. d en ie d 13 1 S . Ct . 18 13 (20 11 ). The re as on ab le ne ss st an da rdis no t ap pl ie d t o e ach in di vi du al de ci si on m ad e dur in g the sen te nc in g p ro ces s, b uton ly to t he fin al sen te nc e. Uni te d Sta te s v. Win in ge ar , 42 2 F .3d12 41 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Defen da nt s m ay

be gi ve n c red itforpri or

cu st od y un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 5( b) . Howev er, d is tri ctco urts are n otau th or iz edat s en te nc in g t o a ward cred itforti m e se rv ed . Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Wils on , 50 3 U.S. 3 29 , 33 3, 1 12 S. Ct. 13 51 , 13 54 , 11 7 L. Ed. 2 d 5 93 (19 92 ). The At to rn ey Gene ral , th ro ug h t he Bu reau of Pri so ns , has th e ex cl us iv e res po ns ib il it y of a dm in is te rin g t he sen te nc e an d cred it in g t im e se rv ed , aft er t he di st ric t co urt h as sen te nc edth e o ffen de r. Id. at 33 4- 35 , 11 2 S . Ct. at13 54 -5 5. To pre se rv e anis su e fo r ap pe al , an o bjec ti onm us t be rai se d i n c le ar an d s im pl e la ng ua ge so as t o n ot ify the tri al co urt an d t he op po si ng pa rty of the pa rti cu lar gr ou nd s upo n wh ic h app el la te rev ie w wil l l at er b e so ug ht . Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Str au b , 50 8 F .3d10 03 , 10 11 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Here, we co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n i m

po si ng a 46 m on th sen te nc e, an d t he sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y 3 Case: 11-16075 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 3 of 6reas on ab le . The s en te nc e is wit hi n t he gu id el in es ran ge an d wel l b el ow t he

st atut ory m ax im um , andth e co urt ex pl ic it ly con si de redth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atCru z h adtwo il le ga l en tri es , two rem ov al s, an d n eces sa ril y , th ree i ll eg al en tri es . In l ig htof t hi s s ub st an ti al hi st ory , itwas re as on ab le for

th e d is tri ctco urt t o c on si de r Cru z’s reci di vi sm in im po si ng th e se nt en ce. Fu rth erm or e, th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atCru z’s wife an d c hi ld ren co nt in ue to li ve in th e Uni te d S ta te s, an d t ha t h e m ig htatt em ptto return i n o rd er t o be wit h t he m . Tho ug h p ot en ti al m it ig at in g fa ct or s ex is te d, s uc h a s t he ha rd sh ip on Cru z’s fam il y

whi le he is im

pr is on ed , th e d is tri ctco urt h eardan d c on si de redth os e arg um en ts in im

po si ng th e se nt en ce. Fu rth erm or e, Cru z’s arg um en t tha t t he 46 m on th sen te nc e is un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto gi ve hi m cred itfor th e fi ve week s h e sp en t i n ICE cu st ody

is witho utm eri t. The reco rdsh ows th atth ere was co nf us io n a s t o whe th er Cruz was re qu es ti ng cred itun de r § 3 58 5( b) , or ado wnwar d v ari an ce un de r § 3 55 3( a). To t he ex te ntth atCru z was see ki ng cred itun de r § 3 58 5( b) , th e di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly det erm in edth atitdi d n otha ve th e au th or it y to cred itCru z’s se nt en ce wi th ti m e se rv ed . Evenif C ru z p res erv edth e d own wardva ria nc e ob jecti on , th e fi na l s en te nc e was st il l re as on ab le , as re as on ab le ne ss is de te rm in ed no t b y di sc ret e d eci si on s b utby the fin al sen te nc e. W in in ge ar , 42 2 F .3dat 1 24 5. 4 Case: 11-16075 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 4 of 6As al read y

st at edhe rei n, t he sen te nc e is reas on ab le gi ve n C ru z’s hi st ory of reci di vi sm , th e se rio us na tu re o f hi s p rio r drug fel on y , andth e p os si bi li ty tha t, i f de po rte d a ga in , he m ig htreturn t o t he Uni te d S ta te s t o b e wit h h is fam il y . Cru z es se nt ia ll y

see ks on ap pe al a re-we ig hi ng of t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, wh ic h we a re pr ecl ud edfro m

do in g. Uni te d Sta tes v. La ng st on , 59 0 F .3d12 26 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Cru z n ex t ar gu es th atitth e d is tri ctco urt’s i m po si ti on of thr ee years o f supe rv is edrel eas e is pro cedur al ly andsubs tant iv el y un reas on ab le , bec au se U.S.S.G. § 5 D1.1 (c), as a de fau lt , adv is es ag ai ns t i ts im po si ti on . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s i m po si ti on of s up erv is edrel eas e fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta te s v. Zi nn , 32 1 F .3d10 84 , 10 87 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Dis tri ctco urts co m

m itpro cedur al erro rs in sen te nc in g wh enth ey , in te r a li a, im pr op erl y cal cu la te th e g ui de li ne s. Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S . Ct. at59 7. Whe re s up erv is edrel eas e is no t re qu ire d b y st atut e an d t he de fen da ntis a de po rtabl e al ie n wh o l ik el y wil l b e d ep orte d a fte r im pr is on m en t, t he di st ric t co urt sh ou ldno t o rd in ari ly im

po se a te rm

of s up erv is edrel eas e. U.S.S.G. § 5 D1.1 (c). The ne edto affo rdad equa te de te rren ce an d t o p ro te ctth e p ub li c “ or di na ril y is ad equa te ly serv edby a new p ro se cu ti on .” Id., cmt. 5 . Howev er, the di st ric t co urt sh ou ldco ns id er i m

po si ng a te rm

of s up erv is edrel eas e o n s uc h ade fen da ntif “ th e 5 Case: 11-16075 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 5 of 6co urt d et erm in es itwou ldpro vi de anad de d m eas ur e o f de te rren ce an d p ro te ct io n

ba se d o n t he fact s an d c irc um st an ces of apa rti cu la r cas e.” Id. Whe n apa rty in du ces or i nv it es th e d is tri ctco urt i nt o m ak in g a n e rro r, th e d oc tri ne of i nv it ed erro r ge ne ral ly rend ers th aterro r un rev ie wab le . Uni te d Sta tes v. Sto ne , 13 9 F .3d 82 2, 8 38 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Inth e in st an t ca se , we no te th atCru z ex pl ic it ly stat edon th e rec or d t ha t supe rv is edrel eas e, ev enup to th ree years, was “ ab so lu te ly app ro pr ia te .” (R3 at 15 ). At n o p oi ntdi d h e qua li fy th atst at em en t b y

ex pl ai ni ng th atitwou ldon ly be ap pr op ria te in co nju nc ti on wit h ales se r se nt en ce t han t he on e th atwas u lt im at el y im po se d. Re ga rd le ss , eve n i f th e d oc tri ne of i nv it ederro r do es no t p recl ud e rev ie w, we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n i m po si ng th ree years o f supe rv is edrel eas e. Tho ug h a s a d efau ltth e g ui de li ne s s ta te th at de po rtabl e al ie ns sh ou ldno t re cei ve supe rv is edrel eas e, it s i m po si ti on was n ot un reas on ab le he re, g iv enCru z’s hi st ory of m ul ti pl e at te m

pt eden tri es an d i ll eg al en tri es . Accor di ng ly, we ho ldth atth e to ta l s en te nc e o f 46 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t fo ll owe d b y

th e th ree years o f supe rv is edrel eas e is bo th pro cedur al ly and subs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le . Thu s, we af

firm Cru z’s se nt en ce. AFFIRMED. 6 Case: 11-16075 Date Filed: 07/27/2012 Page: 6 of 6