FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 24, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 24 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 9- cr-6 01 85 -WPD-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us ANTHONYJAM ES LESLEY, Defen da nt- App el lant .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 24 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, HULL andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ant ho ny Jam es Lesl ey

ap pe al s h is 51 -m on th sen te nc e fo r be in g afel on in po ss es si on of afir earm , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). No rev ers ib le erro rha s b eensh own ; we af firm . On ap pe al , Lesl ey

arg ue s tha t h is sen te nc e subs tant iv el y is un reas on ab le be cau se th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in e und er wh ic h h is sen te nc e was cal cu late d -- U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 -- is no t b as edon em pi ric al da taan d was pro m ul ga te d wi th ou t co ns id erat io n o f th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) s en te nc in g fa ct or s. W e ev al ua te th e * subs tant iv e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e und er a d efer en ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd . Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 5 97 (20 07 ). The pa rty chal le ng in g the 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 inth e li gh t o f bo th th e rec or d a ndth e se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fact or s. Un it edSta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Bri efl y st at ed , un de r se ct io n 3 55 3( a), a d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d c on si de r th e n atur e an d ci rcu m st an ces of the off

en 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 ne edfor th e se nt en ce t o p ro vi de ad equa te de te rren ce, res pe ctforth e la w, and pr ot ect io n o f th e p ub li c, pr ov is io n fo r th e m ed ic al an d e du cat io na l n eed s o f th e de fen da nt , th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e, po li cy st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g C ommis si on , an d the ne edto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 )-(7 ).

L esley rec eived a

base of fense level of 20 unde r sec tion 2K2.1(a)( 4) bec ause he had one * prior fe lony

conviction of e ither a c rime of violenc e or a controlled substanc e off

ense. 2W e co nc lu de th atLesl ey ’s 51 -m on thsen te nc e -- atth e b ot to m of t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge -- s ub st an ti ve ly is re as on ab le . See Tal le y , 43 1 F .3dat 78 8 (n ot in g tha t “ or di na ril y we wou ldex pe cta se nt en ce wi th in th e Gui de li ne s ran ge to be reas on ab le ”). The sen te nc e is well be lo w th e 1 0- y ear s ta tu to ry m ax im um . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( a)(2 ); Un it edSta te s v . Valn or , 45 1 F .3d74 4, 7 51 - 52 (11 thCir . 20 06 ) (co nc lu di ng th ata 28 -m on thsen te nc e was reas on ab le be cau se , am on g o th er thi ng s, the sen te nc e was “ ap pr eci ab ly bel ow the len gt h o f th e [1 80 - m on th ] st atut ory

m ax im um ”). Inad di ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt b as edth e se nt en ce o n m an y sec ti on 35 53 (a) fact or s s up po rte d b y

th e rec or d. Th e co urt n ot edth e se rio us ne ss of g un off en se s, th e n eedfor

th e se nt en ce t o d et er Les le y an d o th ers fro m

po ss es si ng gu ns il le ga ll y , an d the ne edto pro te ctth e p ub li c fro m m or e cri m es by L es le y . The d is tri ctco urt al so co ns id eredLesl ey ’s arg um en t fo r a s en te nc e b el ow the gu id el in es ran ge be cau se of the rece ntbi rthof h is daug ht er. The reco rdrefl ect edth atLesl ey earl ie r ha d b eenco nv ic te d o f fo urfel on ie s, i nc lu di ng arm edrob be ry . On th is reco rd , we can no t s ay

th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n i m po si ng a gu id el in es se nt en ce, es pe ci al ly giv enth e v io le ntan d s eri ou s n atur e o f Les le y ’s cri m es an d th atLesl ey ’s pre vi ou s s en te nc es ha d n otde te rredhi m fro m co m m it ti ng m or e cri m es . 3Lesl ey see ks to ha ve us co nc lu de th athi s s en te nc e subs tant iv el y is un reas on ab le si m

pl y be cau se sec ti on 2K2 .1 i s n otba se d o n e m pi ric al da ta . Butwe rev ie w on ly the fin al sen te nc e, an d n otth e g ui de li ne s the m se lv es , for reas on ab le ne ss ; s o we n eedno t d et erm in e whe th er s ect io n 2 K2.1 it se lf i s reas on ab le un de r th e se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fac to rs . See Un it edSta te s v . Dorm an , 48 8 F.3 d 9 36 , 93 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . Andco nt rary to Les le y ’s arg um en t, a l ackof supp orti ng em

pi ric al ev id en ce d oe s n otinan d o f it se lf r en de r a g ui de li ne pr ov is io n i nv al id . Uni te d S ta te s v . Sni pe s, 6 11 F.3d85 5, 8 70 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). In st ead , a lac k o f em

pi ric al ev id en ce i s o ne fact orth atth e d is tri ctco urt ca n co ns id er i n d eci di ng whet he r to va ry do wnwar d fr om

th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e. See Uni te d S tate s v . Kim

br ou gh , 12 8 S .Ct. 5 58 , 57 3- 76 (20 07 ) (i n the co nt ex t o f th e crac k c oc ai ne gu id el in es , exp la in in g t ha t the di st ric t co urt m ay , bu t i s n otrequi red to , dev iate fro m

th e advi so ry

gu id el in es ina pa rti cu lar cra ckco cai ne cas e b ecau se th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e fo r th es e o ffen se s d idno t t ak e in to acco un t em pi ric al da ta ); Sn ip es , 61 1 F .3dat 8 70 . Thu s, ev enif em pi ric al ev id en ce d idno t s up po rt s ect io n 2K2 .1, the di st ric t co urt s ti ll ret ai ne d t he di sc ret io n t o s en te nc e Les le y withi n the gu id el in es ran ge aft er co ns id eri ng th atran ge as o ne of m an y fact or s i nf

orm in g i ts im po si ti on of Les le y ’s sen te nc e. See i d. Lesl ey ’s arg um en t tha t the di st ric t co urt p res um edim pr op erl y th atth e 4gu id el in es ran ge was re as on ab le is un supp orte d b y th e rec or d. Th e d is tri ctco urt m ad e n o p res um

pt io n b ut , in st ead , m ad e anin de pe nd en t d et erm in at io n tha t, g iv en th e ex te ntof Les le y ’s pri orco nv ic ti on s, an d p art ic ul arl y th atLesl ey

ha d a n a rm ed ro bb ery co nv ic ti on , a fo ur -to -fi ve y ear s en te nc e was ap pr op ria te forLesl ey . To th e ex te ntLesl ey

arg ue s tha t the co urt g av e to o m uc h wei gh t t o the gu id el in es ran ge , th e d eci si on on ho w to weig h t he fact or s i s wi th in th e d is tri ctco urt’s di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Pug h, 5 15 F.3d11 79 , 12 03 (11 thCir . 20 08 ). Whi le “ a di st ric t co urt’s u nju st ifi edrel ianc e o n a ny on e se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct orm ay be a sym pt om of a n unr eas on ab le sen te nc e,” the di st ric t co urt h ere d idno t re ly sol el y on th e advi so ry

gu id el in es ran ge . Id. at11 91 . W e can no t s ay

th atth e withi n- ran ge sen te nc e fai le d t o re fle ctth e p ur po se s of sen te nc in g o r th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d “ a cl ear e rro r of

jud gm en t i n weig hi ng th e [s ect io n] 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 r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” See id . at 12 03 . AFFIRMED.

5