[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 11 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :1 1- cr-8 01 74 -KLR-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 OVIDIO SANTOS-FLORES, a.k .a. Mau ric io Orte ga , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m

be r 25 , 20 12 )
Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-11115 Date Filed: 09/25/2012 Page: 1 of 4Ovi di o S an to s- Fl or es pl edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f ree nt ry of ade 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 )(1 ). The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edSan to sFl or es to 46 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Onap pe al , San to s- Fl or es arg ue s t ha t h is se nt en ce was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt em ph as iz edhi s cri m in al hi st ory

to th e d et riment o f al l o f th e o th er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. In pa rti cu la r, San to s- Fl or es ass ert s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt d idno t g iv e due co ns id erat io n t o h is co m

pe ll in g p ers on al hi st ory

an d s ta tu s as a si ng le paren t. W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e u nd er a d efer en ti al ab us e o f di sc ret io n s tand ard . Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1 (2 00 7) . “ W e m ay set as id e a s en te nc e o nl y

if we d et erm in e, aft er g iv in g aful l m eas ur e o f de fere nc e to th e se nt en ci ng jud ge , th atth e se nt en ce i m po se d t ru ly is u nr eas on ab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Ire

y , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (en ba nc ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S.Ct . 18 13 (20 11 ). The p art y who ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce b ears th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atitis un reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Uni te d Sta te s v. To me , 61 1 F .3d13 71 , 13 78 (11 th Cir .), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 6 74 (2 01 0) . The di stric t co urt m

us t i m po se a se nt en ce “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er t ha n ne ces sary , to co m

pl y wit h t he pu rp os es setfor th in ” § 35 53 (a)( 2) , in cl ud in g t he ne edto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de 2 Case: 12-11115 Date Filed: 09/25/2012 Page: 2 of 4jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , det er cri 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. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), (a )(2 ). In i m po si ng a p art ic ul ar s en te nc e, th e co urt m us t co ns id er t he na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he 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 , th 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 , th e n eedto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s, an d th e n eedto pro vi de res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. Id
. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (3 )-(7 ). Alt ho ug h t he di st ric t co urt m us t co ns id er al l o f th e fac to rs li st edin § 3 55 3 an d g iv e an ex pl an at io n fo r th e se nt en ce i m po se d, t he di st ric t co urt n eedno t di sc us s ea ch fact orex pl ic it ly. Uni te d Sta te s v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Rath er, the co urt n eedon ly ackn owl ed ge th atitha s co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d t he de fen da nt ’s arg um en ts . Id
. W e d eferto th e d is tri ct co urt’s jud gm en t re ga rd in g t he weig htgi ve n t o t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s u nl es s the di st ric t co urt m ad e a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t an d i m

po se d asen te nc e o ut si de 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. Id
. Here, Sa nt os -Fl or es ass ert s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt fo cu se d s in gl e-m in de dl y on hi s cr im in al hi st ory . The rec or d b el ie s thi s cl ai m . The d is tri ctco urt co ns id ered San to s- Fl or es ’s arg um en ts reg ard in g h is pe rs on al hi st ory an d s ta tu s as a si ng le pa ren t, b utfou ndth ata se nt en ce atth e lo w endof the gu id el in e ran ge was 3 Case: 12-11115 Date Filed: 09/25/2012 Page: 3 of 4ap pr op ria te gi ve n S an to s- Fl or es ’s cri m in al hi st ory an d g iv enth e n eedforge ne ral de te rren ce. San to s- Fl or es ha s n otm ethi s b ur de n. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e se nt en ce as subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le . AFFIRMED.

4

Case: 12-11115 Date Filed: 09/25/2012 Page: 4 of 4