FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 6, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1079 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 80 16 2- CR-KLR UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us JOSEP H LEROY BETH EL, a.k .a. Ja so n Wil li am s, a.k .a. Jo hn ny Lee Cro ss , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 6, 200 8) Be fo re BI RC H , D U BIN A and M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Joseph Le roy

Bethel appeals fr om

his 7 0 -m onth sentence for illegal r eentry of a pr ev io us ly rem ov edali en , in vi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6 ( a ) a n d (b) (2 ). On2

ap pe al , Be the l arg ue s: ( 1) that hi s se nt en ce w as sub stanti ve ly unr ea sona

ble be caus e hi s off

en se w as non vio le nt and h e ha d be enm ak ing str ide s a t be co m ing a pr oduc tiv e m em

be r of soc ie ty ; and ( 2) that hi s se nte nc e w as unc on stitut ion al ly
en hanc ed be ca use the e nhanc em en t wa s ba se d up on the f ac t of apr ior c onvi ct ion t h a tw a s n o ta l l e g e di n th e i n d i c t me n t . A f t e r th o r o u g h r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. W e re vie wthe ult im at e se nte nc e im po se d by

adis tr ic t c ourt f

or

“ re as ona ble ne ss, ” w hic h “ m er el y a sks w he ther t he tr ia l c ourt a buse d it s dis cr et ion
. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Pu gh , 5 15 F
. 3d 1 179, 118 9 ( 11th C ir
. 200 8) ( quot ing Ri ta v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 , 2465 (2007)). W e re view a defe n d an t ’s pres er v ed constitu tional challenge to h is sentence de novo
. United States v. Paz , 40 5 F .3d94 6, 9 48 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e ar e unpersuaded by

Bethel’ s ar g um ent that his sent ence is unreasonable. Inr ev ie w ing se nte nc es f

or r ea sona ble ne ss, w e pe rf

orm tw o st ep s. P ugh, 515 F
. 3d at 119 0. F irst , w e m

ust “ ‘ en sur e that the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed no s ign if

ic an t p r o c e dur a l e rr o r , s u c h a s f a i l i n g t o c a l c u l a t e ( o r

i m p r o p e r l y c a l c u l a t i n g ) the G ui de l i ne s r a ng e , t r e a t i ng t he G ui de l i ne s a s m a nd a t or y , f a i l i ng t o c on si de r the § 3553 (a ) f a c t o r s , s e l e c t i n g as e n t e n c e b a s e do n c l e a r l y e rr o n e o u s f

a c t s , o r f a i l i n g to ad equa te ly

e xpl ai n th e ch ose n se nte nc e -- inc ludin g an explana tio n f or a ny deviatio n f

ro m the G uid el ine s r an ge . ’ ” I d. ( quot ing G al l v. U nit ed S ta te s, 128The § 3553(a ) fa ctors include: ( 1) the nature a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and the 1 history and cha rac teristics of the de fen d an t; (2) the nee d for the se ntence imposed to refle ct the seriousness of the offe nse, to promote re spect for the law, an d t o p ro v ide just punishment for the offe nse; (3) the need f

or the sente nce imposed to a ffor d adequa te deter renc e; (4) the need to pr otect the public; (5) the ne ed to provide the defe ndant with educational or vocational trainingor medica l car e; (6) the kinds o f s en t en ces available; (7) the SentencingGuidelines ra ng e; (8) the pertinent policy statements of the Sente ncingCommi ssion; (9) the nee d to avoid unwanted se n t en cing disparities; and (10) the nee d to provide re stitut ion to victims . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In his reply

brief, B ethel conc edes that he is not challeng ing the proce dural 2 rea sonablene ss of his sentence
. See also Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2462 (holding that a c ourt of appe als may aff ord a 3 presumption o f reasonable ness to a within-Guidelines se ntence ); United States v. Campbell, 491 F.3d 1306, 1314 n.8 (11th Cir. 2007) (notingthat, althoug h we have not normally aff orded awithinGuidelines sentenc e a pr esumption of rea sonablene ss, Rit a ca lls that poli cy into question). 3 S. Ct
. 586 , 597 ( 2007 ))
. I f w e co nc lu de that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t pr oc ed ur al ly 1
er r, we m ust co nsi de r the “ ‘ subs tanti ve r ea sona ble ne ss o f the se nte nc e im pose d, unde r anabuse- of

-d isc re tio n st an dard , ’ ” ba se d onthe “ ‘ tot al ity of the circum stances.’ ” Id. (quoting Ga ll, 128 S. Ct. at 597). “ Th e p ar t y who challenges the se nte nc e be ar s th e bur den of es ta bli shi ng tha t the se nte nc e is unr ea sona ble in the l i g h t o f b o t h t h [ e ] r e c o r d a n d t h e f a c t o r s i n s e c t i o n 3 5 5 3 ( a )
. ” U n i t e d St at es v. Thom as, 446 F. 3d 13 48, 1351 (11t h Cir. 2006 ) (internal quotation om i tted). Bethel has not shown that his sen t ence is substanti vely unreasonable. 2 Be the l ha d an e xte ns ive c ri m ina l hi sto ry and w as aha

bit ua l tra ff ic of fe nde r, and his present case stem

m ed from an arr est for dom estic violence. In additio n, he w as
se nte nc ed a t the low -e nd o f the a dvi sor y G uid el in es ran ge . A cc or din gly , the 34

district court did n ot abuse its d iscretion by im posin g a 70-m onth sentence. W e likewise f

ind no m erit t o Be thel’ s contentio n that the dist rict court er red by e nhanc ing his se nte nc e ba se d onapr ior c onvi ct ionthat w as not

a lle ge d in the indictm ent. Under 8 U. S. C. § 1 3 2 6 (a ), an alien w ho has been depo rted and then
re en te rs the U nit ed

S ta te s w ith out

pe rm iss ionis subj ec t t o a m ax im um se nte nc e of two y ears’ im

prisonment. 8 U. S. C. § 132 6(a). H owever , the m axim um sentence incr e a se s t o 20 y e a r s’ i m pr i so nm e nt

i f the a l i e n w a s c on vi c t e d of an “ a gg ravated fel on y ” b efo re re m ov al . 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (b )(2 ). InA lm en dare z- T or

re s, 523 U
. S. 224 ( 1998 ), the Su pr em e Court he ld tha t a de fe ndant’ s pr ior co nv ic ti ons did not ne ed to be a lle ge d inthe ind ic tm en t t o be
use d inse nte nc ing
. T he S upr em e Co urt r ea ff irm ed thi s ho ldi ng i n Appr en di v
. N ewJe rs ey , 530 U
. S. 466 , 490 ( 2000 ), stat in g that “ [o ] the r than th e fa ct

of apr ior
co nvi ct ion

, any fac t that increases the penalty for a crim e beyo n d t he prescribed statut or y m ax im um m ust be sub m itt ed

to a j ur y , and p ro ve d be y ond a re as ona ble doub t.” How ever, in Apprendi and subs equent decision s t h e Su p rem e Court has
ca st d oubt

on the c ont inu ing vit al ity of A lm en dare z- T or re s, w hil e not

a ct ua lly
ove rr uli ng i t. S ee , e . g. , Appr en di, 5 30 U.S. a t 48 9- 90; S he pard v. U nit ed

S ta te s, 544 U
. S. 13, 27- 28 ( 2005 ) (T hom as , J. , c oncurr in g in part and c onc ur

ri ng i n th e j udg m e n t )
. N e v e rt h e l e s s , w e h a v e s t a t e d t h a t w e w i l l c o n t i n u e t o appl y5

Alm endarez- Torr es until th e Suprem e Court chooses to ov errule it. E .g. , United St at es v. D ow d, 451 F
. 3d 1 244, 125 3 ( 11th C ir. 2 00 6) ; Un ite d S ta te s v. G re er , 440 F. 3d 12 67, 1273-76 (11th Cir. 2006). T he S upr em e Co urt ha s he ld tha t w he n ac ourt de te rm ine s th e “ ch ar ac te r” of
a pr ev iou s c onvi ct ionit m ay ex am ine “ the statut or y de fi nit ion , c harg ing doc um en t, w ri tte n pl ea

a gr ee m en t, tr an sc ri pt o f ple a co llo quy , and any e xp lici t fa ct ua l f ind ing by the tr ia l j udge to w hic h th e de fen dant a sse nte d, ” but it m ay not look to pol ic e re ports o r co m pla int appl ic at ion s to de te rm ine f ac ts a bout a defendant’ s prior convictio n. S hepard , 5 4 4 U.S. at 16 (determ ining whether a convictio n qualified as a violent felonyunder the Ar m ed Care er C rim inal Act)
. W e hel d th at

S he pard doe s no t l im it a se nte nc ing c ourt f ro m de te rm ini ng the charac te r of a prior c onvi ction from the statutory

elem ents of the offense. G reer , 440 F. 3d at 12 75. Un der this case law , the district court did not err by considering Bethe l ’s pr ior c onvi ct ionw he n e nhanc ing his se nte nce. Mo re ove r, Be the l ha s no t pu t f orth
an ythi ng f

ro m the r ec or d to sho w t hat the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d so m ethin g ot he r th an the statut or

y e le m en ts o f the pr ior

c onvi ct ionw he n de te rm ini ng i ts ch ar ac te r. A cc or din gly , Be the l’ s se nte nc e en hanc em en t w as c onst itu tio na l. AFFIRMED.