FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 14, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 50 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-0 01 58 -KD-N-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 Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JESUC RISTO LOPEZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 1 4, 2 01 2) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, JORDAN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:App el lantJes uc ris to Lop ez ap pe al s h is 87 -m on th sen te nc e o f im pr is on m en t, im po se d a fte r he pl edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to d is tri bu te an d p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne an d m ari juan a, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6 an d 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(B) , andon e co un t o f at te m pt in g t o s m

ug gl e weap on s fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s, i n v io la ti on of 2 2 U.S.C. § 27 78 an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 55 4( a). On ap pe al , Lop ez ar gu es th athi s s en te nc e ap pe al waiv er was no t kno win g a nd vo lu nt ary, an d tha t the di st ric t co urt erredinap pl y in g atwo -le ve l g ui de li ne se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) fo r po ss es si ng a da ng ero us weap on . W e h av e al ready res ol ve d the waiv er i ss ue by den y in g t he go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n t o d is m is s o n tha t g ro un d. Th eref or e, th is op in io n o nl y

ad dr es se s the se nt en ci ng is su e. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actun de r § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) fo r cl ear erro r, an d i ts ap pl ic at io n o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es to th os e fac ts de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ph am , 46 3 F .3d12 39 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Howev er, i t i s “ no t ne ces sa ry to de ci de gu id el in es is su es or r em an d c as es forne w sen te nc e pr oc eed in gs wher e th e g ui de li ne s erro r, if a ny, didno t af fectth e se nt en ce.” Uni te d Sta tes v. K

een e , 47 0 F .3d13 47 , 13 49 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . To ho ldth atanall eg edgu id el in e err orwas h arm le ss , we con si de r whe th er: (1) th e d is tri ctco urt wo ul d h av e rea ch edth e sam e res ul t i f itha d d eci de d 2th e g ui de li ne is su e th e o th er way; and(2) th e se nt en ce i m po se d was reas on ab le un de r th e fac to rs in18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), ev enif the gu id el in e is su e h adbe en res ol ve d i n the de fen dant ’s fav or . Id. Und er § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ), a d efen da ntis subjec t t o atwo -le ve l en ha nc em en t “ [i]f a d an ge ro us weap on (in cl ud in g afir earm ) was po ss es se d.” U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ). The co m

m en tary to th is sec ti on pro vi de s as fol lo ws: “ The en ha nc em en t fo r weap on po ss es si on insubs ect io n (b )(1 ) refl ect s the in crea se d da ng er o f vi ol en ce wh endru g traff ic ke rs po ss es s weapo ns . The en ha nc em en t sh ou ldbe ap pl ie d i f th e weap on was p res en t, u nl es s i t i s cl earl y im pr ob ab le th at th e weap onwas c on ne ct edwith t he off en se .” Id . § 2 D1.1 co m

m en t. (n .3(A) ). Po ss es si on canbe sh own by dem on st rat in g the de fen da ntactua ll y po ss es se d t he fir earm or t ha t h e co ns tru ct iv el y po ss es se d i t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Vi llar re al , 61 3 F .3d 13 44 , 13 59 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n m ean s tha t the de fen da nt ha d “ own ers hi p, d om in io n, o r co ntro l o ve r anob ject i ts el f orco ntro l o ve r th e pr em is es inwhi chth e o bjec t i s co nc eal ed .” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . As t o the reas on ab le ne ss of t he sen te nc e, th e d is tri ctco urt m us t i m po se a se nt en ce “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er tha n n eces sa ry , to co m pl y with t he pu rp os es ” li st edin§ 3 55 3( a)(2 ), in cl ud in g t he ne edto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of the off en se , pr om ot e res pe ctforth e law, pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , det er 3cri m in al co nduc t, an d p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m th e d efen da nt ’s futur e cri m in al co nduc t. Se e18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). In i m po si ng a pa rti cu lar se nt en ce, the co urt m us t al so co ns id er, am on g o th er fa ct or s, the na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of the of fen se , th e h is to ry

an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt , th e k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e, th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , andth e p ert in en t p ol ic y st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si on . Se e g en eral lyid . § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (3 )-(7 ).

“ The rev ie w forsubs tant iv e unr eas on ab le ne ss in vo lv es ex am in in g the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g a n i nqui ry in to whet he r th e st atut ory fact or s i n § 35 53 (a) s up po rt t he sen te nc e in qu es ti on .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The “ weig htto be acco rd edan y gi ve n § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or

is a m at te r co m

m it te d t o the so un d d is cret io n o f th e d is tri ct co urt.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 52 6 F .3d13 12 , 13 22 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e wil l n otrev ers e unl es s “ le ft wi th th e d efi ni te an d firm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (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 reas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om itte d) , cer t. d

en ie d , 13 1 S . Ct. 1 81 3 (2 01 1) .

4W e co nc lu de fro m th e rec or d t ha t an y

erro r co m

m it te d b y th e d is tri ctco urt in im po si ng a two -le ve l g ui de li ne enha nc em en t u nd er § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ) was ha rm le ss un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces . The rec or d d em on st rat es th atth e d is tri ctco urt wo ul d ha ve im po se d the same 87 -m on th to ta l s en te nc e o f im pr is on m en t ev enif the gu id el in e is su e h adbe enres ol ve d i n Lo pe z’s fav or , andhi s s en te nc e wou ldha ve be enreas on ab le if h is advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge ha d b eencal cu la te d abs en t the en ha nc em en t. Se e Kee ne , 47 0 F .3dat 1 34 9. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm Lop ez’s se nt en ce. AFFIRMED.

5