FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 22, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12481 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 84 -C R -001 -H L -5 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R O G E L I O V A Z Q U E Z A G U I L A R , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 22, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R oge l i o V a z que z A gui l a r ap p ea l s hi s 60- m onth s e nt e nc e , i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty pl e a t o one c ountof i l l e ga l l y re-en t eri ng the U ni t e d S t a t e s a f t e rbe i ng depo rt ed, a vi ol at i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6(a) & (b). A l tho ug h the advi sory2

G u id elin es ra ng e i n thi s c as e w as 15 t o 2 1 m on ths, the di stri ctcourti nst ea d s e n te n c e d A g u ila rto a te r m o f 6 0 m o n th s . I n d o in g s o , th e c o u r t f ir s t p r o p e r ly ca l cul at ed the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange , a n d th en i top i ned t hata var i ance w as ap p r o p r ia te u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , g iv e n A g u ila r ’s h is to ry o f r e p e a te d ly e nt e r i ng the U ni t e d S t a t e s i l l e ga l l y . O n ap p eal , A gui l a rr a i s e s the f ol l ow i ng c la im s : ( 1 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y n o t g iv in g h im a d v a n c e n o tic e o f i t s i n t e n t to i m po se a n up w a r d va r i a nc e f r om the G ui de l i ne s r a ng e , a nd ( 2) the di s tr i c tcourt prov i ded an i nadequ at e s t atem entof re as on s f or i m po si ng an up w ar d v ar i ance , as r e q u i r e d b y 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( c ) . A f t e rc a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. W e r evi ew a def

endant ’ s ul t i m at e s ent ence for r ea sonabl enes s. U n it ed S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 264 ( 2005) ; U ni t e d S t at es v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 78 5 ( 11 th Ci r . 20 05 ) . U nd e rthe po s t - Book e r , a dv i s ory G ui de l i ne s r e gi me , di stri ct court s enj oy si gn i fi ca nt l at i tud e i n i m po si ng cr i m i nal se nt ence s. R i t a v . U n it ed S t a t e s , 127 S . C t . 2456, 2465 ( 200 7 ); see al s o G a l l v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 128 S . C t . 586, 594 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . T he r e a s onabl e ne s s s t a nda r d of appe l l a t e r e vi e w i s a ki n t o a bus e of d i scret i o n . S ee G a l l , 1 2 8 S . C tat5 9 4 (“ O u r ex p l an at i o n o f ‘ reaso n ab l en ess’ re vi ew i n the B oo ker opi ni on m ade i tpel l uci dl y c l ea r thatth e fam i l i ar abus e - of - di s c r e t i on s t a ndar d of r e vi e w now appl i e s t o appe l l a t e r e vi e w of s e nt e nc i ng de c i s i ons . ” ) ; K i m br ough v. U ni t e d S t a t e s, 1 2 8 S . C t . 558, 576 ( 2007)3

(s tati n g th at ap p ellate co u rts s h o u ld g iv e “d u e re sp ec t t o [a ] D istrict C o u rt’s re as on ed apprai sa l ” of the prop erse nt ence for adefe nd ant ). T he fa ct s r el evantt o A g u il ar ’s se nt enci ng ar gu m ent s a re these . O n F ebruary 1, 2007, i n a s upe r s e di ng i nf or m a t i on, A gui l a rw a s c ha r ge d w i t h o n e countof i l l e ga l l y r e e nt e r i ng the U ni t e d S t at es w i thoutpe r m i s s i on, a f t e rpr e vi ous l y be i ng d e p o r te d , a v i o l at i o n o f 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 (a) & (b ). H e p l ed g u i l ty an d p ro cee d e d to s e nt e nc i ng. A cc ordi ng t o the pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt (P S I) , i n 1 99 8, A gu i l ar w a s c o n v ic te d o n o n e c o u n t o f p o s s e s s io n o f

c o c a in e a n d s e n t e n c e d to a 1 2 - m o n th t e r m of i m pr i s onm e nt , w hi ch w a s s us pe nde d upon hi s de por t a t i on i n D e c e m be rof tha ty e a r . H e s ubs e que nt l y w a s de t a i ne d by I N S of f i c i a l s i n 2000, a f

t e rbe i ng f ound unl a w f

ul l y pr e s e nti n the c ountry . T he f ol l ow i ng y e a r , he w a s c onvi c t e d on one c ountof

be i ng unl a w f

ul l y pr e s e nti n the U n i t ed S t a t e s a f t e rde por t a t i on a nd w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 6 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . H e a ga i n w a s de por t e d i n J une of 2 0 0 1. A ts om e poi ntthe r e a f t er, A gui l a rr e turne d t o the c ountry , a ga i n w i thout pe r m i s s i on. I n 2002, he e nt e r e d a “ no c ont e s t ” pl e a t o s t a t e c har ge s f ordr i vi ng u n d er th e i n fl u en ce an d fai l u re t o d ri v e i n a si n g l e l an e, an d w as sen t en ced b y a state co urtj ud ge t o 6 0 d ay s i n j ai l . L at erthatsa m e y ea r, i n Jul y of 200 2, A gu i l ar w a s a r r e s te d fo r p o ssessi o n w i th i n t en tt o d i stri b u t e co cai n e an d p o ssessi o n o f l ess4

tha n one ounc e o f m ar i j ua na . I n J ul y of

2004, he pl e d gui l ty t o both c ha r ge s a nd w a s s e n t e n c e d t o a t o t a l s e n t e n c e o f 1 2 y e a r s ’ i mp r i s o n me n t . H e w a s p a r o l e d on N ove m be r2, 2006. W hi l e A gu i l arw as se rvi ng hi s s ent ence for the 20 04 drug conv i ct i on s, an I m m i gr a t i on a nd C us t om s E nf or c e m e nt( “ I C E ” ) a ge nte nc ount e r e d A gui l a ra tthe pr i s on. A f

e de r a l gr a nd j u ry s ubs e que nt l y i ndi c t e d A gui l a ron one c ountof i l l egal l y r e- ent er i ng the U ni t ed S t at es af t erbei ng conv i ct ed of an aggravat ed f e l ony . T ha ti ndi c tm e ntw as s ubs e que nt l y r e pl a c e d by a s upe r s e di ng i nf or m a t i on c ha r gi ng A g u i l ar w i th i l l e ga l r e - e ntry , butnota s a n a ggr a va t e d f e l on, i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6 (a) & (b). Pur s ua nt t o U . S. S. G . §2 L1. 2, the PS I a s s i gn e d A gu i l a r a ba s e of f e ns e l evel of 8 a nd r e c om m e nde d a 4- l e ve l i nc r e a s e , unde r§ 2L 1. 2( b) (1 )(D ), r e l y i ng on A g u ila r ’s J u ly 2 0 0 4 f

e lo n y d ru g c o n v ic tio n s . A f te ra 2 - le v e l r e d u c tio n , p u r s u a n t to U . S . S .G . § 3 E 1. 1, for a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty, A gu i l ar ’ s a dj ust ed offens e l evel w as 10 . W i th a cr i m i n al h ist ory c at egory I V , A gu i l arfa ce d a G ui del i nes s e nt e nc i ng r a nge of

15 t o 21 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . T h e P S I di d noti de nt i f y a ny f a c to r s w a rr a n tin g e ith e ra d e p a r tu r e o r a v a r ia n c e f r o m th a t r a n g e . N e ith e rp a r ty o b je c te d to th e c a lc u la tio n s o f th e P S I , a n d it w a s a d o p t e d b y t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t. A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, A g u i l a rs poke on hi s ow n be ha l f , s t a t i ng the5

f ol l ow i ng: “ T he r eason I ’ ve be e n c om i ng ba c k i s be c a us e I know nothi ng about M e x ic o . B u t, y o u k n o w , n o w th a t I k n o w i f I c o m e b a c k a n d I g e t a ll th is tim e , I h a v e n o c h o ic e b u t to s ta y in M e x i c o . T h e o th e rtim e s th a t I h a v e b e e n b a c k is because I k n o w n o thi ng el se . ” A ft erA gu i l ar ’ s s t at em ent , the courtob se rved that he ha d a n of

f e ns e l e ve l of

10 a nd a c r i m i n al h i st ory I V , a nd i ti de nt i f i e d the G ui de l i ne s r a nge a s 15 t o 24 m onths . T he co u r tthe n s t a t e d tha t“ the gui de l i ne ra ng e i n thi s ca se do es no tre fl ec tw hat ’ s a ctual l y goi ng on here . M r. A gu i l arhas c o n v ic tio n s f

o rp o s s e s s io n o f

c o c a in e , f

o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te coca i ne, and p o ss es si on of l es s than o ne [oun ce ] of cocai ne. ” T he courtfurther not e d tha tA gui l a rha d i l l e ga l l y r e - e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s tw i c e a f t e rde por t a t i on. T he di s tr i c t c our tthe n s t a t e d tha ti tw oul d va ry A gui l a r ’ s s e nt e nc e “ ba s e d on the pr ovi s i ons of

18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) a nd hi s c r i m i na l r e co rd as I’ v e r e c i t e d i ta nd h is h is to ry o f

r e tu r n i n g to th e U n ite d S ta te s .” T h e c o u r t th e n im p o s e d a 6 0 - m o n th t erm of i m pri sonm ent , fol l ow ed by 3 yea rs ’ s up ervi se d rel ea se . T he di stri ctcourt s ubs e q u ent l y f

i l e d a w r i tt e n s t a t e m e ntof r e a s ons f

ors e nt e nc i ng out s i de of the gu i del i ne ra ng e. In that st at em ent , the court i dent i fi ed the foll o w in g § 3 55 3(a) f a c t o r s : ( 1 ) t o r e f

l e c tth e s e r i o u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e , t o p r o m o t e r e s p e c tf o rth e l a w, and t o p rovi de j ust p u n i shm entfor the offens e ( § 3 55 3(a) (2)( A )) ; (2) t o aff ord6

a de qua t e de t e rren ce t o c r i m i na l c onduc t( § 3553( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ) ; a nd ( 3) t o pr ot e c tthe publ i c f r om f ur the rc r i m i na l c onduc t( § 3553( a ) ( 2) ( C ) ) . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. P u r s u a n t t o R u le 3 2 ( h ) o f th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e , a s e n te n c in g c o u r t is r e q u ir e d to g iv e a d e f e n d a n t r e a s o n ab le n o tic e th a t it is c ons i de r i ng a de pa r tur e f r om the appl i c abl e gui de l i ne r a n g e o n a gr ound not id e n tif ie d f o r d e p a rtu r e e ith e rin th e P S I o rin a p a r ty ’s p r e h e a r in g s u b m is s io n . I t is un di sput ed thatthe di stri ctcou rt b elo w di d n otgi ve pri or no t i ce thati tw as cont em pl at i ng an ou t si de-the-gui del i nes s ent ence . Iti s a l so no tdi sput ed that A gui l a r ’ s s e nt en ce w a s a n upw a r d va r i a nc e , r a the rtha n a n upw a r d de pa r tur e , f r om the G ui del i nes r ange. C f. U ni t ed S t at es v. E l di ck, 44 3 F . 3d 78 3, 7 8 8 n . 2 (1 1th C i r. 20 06 ) ( i dentifying tw o fac t ors i n d et erm i ni ng w hether adeci si on t o sent ence a de f e nda ntabove the G ui de l i ne s r a nge i s a de pa r tur e ora va r i a nc e : ( 1) w he th erthe s e nt e nc i ng c our tc i t e d t o a s pe c i f i c de pa r tu re pr ovi s i on i n the gui de l i ne s , a nd ( 2) w h e th e rth e c o u r t n o te d th e in a d e q u a c y o f th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e ) . W e a r e u n p e r s u a d e d b y A g u i l a r ’s f ir s t a r g u m e n t, th a t h e w a s e n title d to ad vance not i ce of the po ss i bi l i ty thatthe di stri ctcourtw ou l d i m po se a var i ance . W e ha ve he l d tha tthe not i c e r e qui r e m e ntof R ul e 3 2 (h) doe s notappl y t o a v a r ia n c e u n d e r§ 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . I r iz a rry , 4 5 8 F .3 d 1 2 0 8 , 1 2 1 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2006) ( “ a f

t e rB ooke r , pa r t i e s a r e i nhe r e nt l y o n n o t i ce tha tthe s e nt e nc i ngThe SupremeCourt’s rec ent grant of c ertiora ri in Irizarry

does not aff

ect our obligation 1 to follow p ri o r dec isions of this C ourt. See Robinson v. Crosby , 358 F.3d 1281, 1284 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (“ [T] he grant of c ertiora ri alone is not enough to chang e the law of this circuit or to justify this Co urt in grantin g a s ta y o f e xe c uti o n o n th e p o s s ib il it y th at th e Su

p re me Co urt may

overturn circuit law.”); Ritter v. Thigpen, 828 F.2d 662, 665-66 (11th Cir. 1987) (“Agrant of c ertiora ri does not constitute n ew l aw . ”); Thomas v. Wainwright, 788 F.2d 684, 689 (11th Cir.1986) ( “[A]ny implications to be drawn [from a grant of cer tiorari in another

case ] m ay

be discerned by

application to the Supreme Court.”) (citation omitted). 7 gu i del i ne ra ng e i s a dv i sory and t hatthe di stri ctcourtm ustconsi der the fa ct ors expres sl y s etou ti n sec t i on 35 53 (a ) w h en se l ec t i ng a r ea sonabl e s ent ence betw ee n the s t a tut ory m i ni m um an d m axi m um ” ) , c e r t . gr a nt e d, 2008 W L 54345 ( U . S . J a n. 4 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( N o . 0 6 - 7 5 1 7 ) . P u r s u a n t to I r iz a rry , b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, in 1 choo si ng t o in creas e A gu i l ar ’ s s ent ence , expres sl y di d so as avari ance un der § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , R u le 3 2 ( h ) d o e s n o t ap p ly a n d A g u ila rw a s n o t e n title d to a d v a n c e n o tic e . A gui l a ra l s o c ha l l e nge s the a d eq u acy o f the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e a s ons f orthe u p wa r d v a r i a n c e . Af

t e rB o o k e r , s e n t e n c i n g r e v i e w r e q u i r e s two s t e p s : f i r s t , we m us te ns ure t ha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d no s i gni f i c a ntpr oc e dur a l e rr or , a nd s e c ond, w e m us tc ons i de rthe s ubs t a nt i ve r e a s ona bl e ne s s of the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d. S ee G al l , 12 8 S . C t . at59 7; U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 4 31 F . 3d 78 4, 78 6 (11 th C i r. 2005) . T he r e a s onabl e ne s s s t a nda r d i s notapp l i ed t o ea c h i ndi vi dua l de c i s i on m a de dur i ng the sen t e nc i ng pr oc e s s . R a the r , w e c ons i de rthe r e a s ona bl e ne s s of the ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e i m pos e d i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M ar t i n, 45 5 F. 3d 12 27 , 12 37 ( 11 th Ci r . 20 06 ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 12 7 S. Ct . 29 53 ( 20 07 ).8

O urr e a s onabl e ne s s r e vi e w i s de f e r e nt i a l , a nd r e qui r e s us t o “ e va l ua t e w he the rt he se nt ence i m po se d b y the di stri ctcourtfa i l s t o achi eve the pu rposes of se nt enci ng as st at ed i n § 35 53 (a ). ” T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d at78 8. T he party c hal l engi ng the se nt ence

“ be a r s the bur de n of

e s t abl i s hi ng t h at the s e nt e nc e w a s unr e a s ona bl e i n l i ghtof [ th e ] r e c o r d a n d th e f

a c to r s in s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) .” I d . In arri vi n g at a r ea sonabl e s ent ence , the di stri ctcourti s r equi re d t o con si der th e f a c t or s s e touti n 18 U . S . C . 3553( a ) : ( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the offe nse a nd the hi st ory a nd char ac t er i st ics o f the defendant ; (2) the need t o ref l ec t th e seri o u sn ess o f th e o ffen se, t o p ro m o t e resp ect f o r th e la w , an d t o p ro v i d e j u st puni s hm e ntf

orthe of f e ns e; ( 3) the ne e d f

orde t e rr e nc e ; ( 4) the ne e d t o pr ot e c tthe pu bl i c; (5 ) the need t o p rovi de the defendantw i th n ee ded edu ca t i on al or vo ca t i on al t r a i n i n g o rme d i c a l c a r e ; ( 6 ) th e k i n d s o f s e n t e n c e s a v a i l ab l e ; ( 7 ) th e Se n t e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge ; ( 8) p ert i n en tpol i c y s t a t e m e nt s of the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on; ( 9) the ne e d t o a voi d unw a nt e d s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i t i e s ; a nd ( 10) the ne e d t o pr ovi de r e s titu tio n to v ic tim s . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 6 ( c itin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ) . F or adequa t e app el l at e r evi ew , w hen a di stri ctcourtvari es a s ent ence un der 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , s ubs e c t i on ( c ) req u i r e s the c our tt o s t a t e i t s r e a s ons f orthe v ar i a nc e . T he br e vi ty orl e ngth of s uc h a s t a t e m e ntde pe nds upon the ci rc um st ance s of e ac h p art i cul arca se . S ee R i t a, 1 2 7 S . C t. at 24 67 . “ T he l aw9

l e a ve s m uc h, i n thi s r e s pe c t , t o t h e j u d g e’ s ow n pr of e s s i ona l j udgm e nt. . . the se nt enci ng j ud ge shou l d art i cul at e e no ug h t o sat i sf y the appel l at e co urtthathe has c o n s i d e r e d th e p a r t i e s ’ a r g u m e n t s a n d h a s a r e a s o n e d b a s i s f o re x e r c i s i n g h i s o wn l e ga l de c i s i on m a ki ng a uthor i ty . ” I d. a t2467- 8. M or e ove r , “ [ t ] he w e i ghtt o be a c c or de d a ny gi ve n § 3553( a ) f a c t o r i s a m at t e rc om m i tt e d t o the s ound di s c r e t i on o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t.” U n ite d S ta te s v . C la y , 4 8 3 F .3 d 7 3 9 , 7 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . A gu i l ar ’ s s ent ence , al tho ug h si gn i fi ca nt l y abo ve the G ui del i nes r ang e, w as s t i l l f i v e y e a r s be l ow t he 1 0 - y e a rs t a tu t o ry ma x i mu m h e f a c e d . 8 U . S. C. 13 26 (b)( 4). W e have hel d thata di stri ctcourt , i n d et erm in in g a se nt ence , m ay p ro p erl y co n si d er a d efen d a n t’s reco rd o f i l l eg al re-en tri es i n t o th e U n i t ed S t at es, U ni t e d S t a t e s v . C a s tr i l l on- G onz a l e z , 77 F . 3d 403, 406- 407 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( a f f i r m i ng upw a r d de pa r tur e ba s e d, i n pa r t , on di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c ons i de r a t i on of

“ defe nd ant ’ s m ul t i pl e p rio r il le gal entry and re-e ntri es i nt o the U ni t ed S t at es as an adul t , and h i s r epea t ed fa i l ure t o com pl y w i th adm i ni stra t i ve o rd er s nott o ree nt er the c ountry w i thoutpe r m i s s i on” ) , a s w e l l a s pr i orc onvi c t i ons pr ope r l y not e d i n the P S I. S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 438 F . 3d 1272, 1273 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng tha t“ i tw a s note rr ort o e nha nc e W i l l i a m s ’ s e nt e nc e on the ba s i s of pr i or c onvi c t i ons pr op erl y n o t e d i n the P S I ” ) . B e c a us e the f a c t or s r e l i e d on by the di stri ctcourtw er e a dequ at el y r ai se d and consi dere d atthe se nt en cin g h ea ri ng , as10

w e l l a s l i s t e d i n the s t a t e m e ntof r e a s ons s ubs e que nt l y s ubm i tt e d b y t h e cour t , a nd b e c a u s e we h a v e ap p r o v e d th e v e ry f a c t o r s c o n s i d e r e d b y th e d i s tr i c tc o u r th e r e , we ca nn ot sa y the di s tr i c tc ou r tabu s e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n i mpos i ng a 60 - month s e nt e nc e. A c c or di ngl y , A gui l a rha s nots a t i s f i e d hi s bur de n t o s how hi s s e nt e nc e w a s not r e a s o n ab le . AF F I RME D.