[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 96 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cr-0 00 61 -J ES-DNF-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us LUIS DOMINGUEZ-DEVALL E, 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 fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 4, 2 01 2) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d EDMONDSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Lui s Do m in gu ez-De va ll e ap pe al s h is withi n g ui de li ne 84 -m on th sen te nc e im po se d a fte r he pl ead edgu il ty to i ll eg al reen try int o t he Uni te d S ta te s fo ll owi ng a

Case: 11-14969 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 1 of 8pr ev io us de po rta ti on , invi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6( a), (b )(2 ). No rev ers ib le

erro r ha s b eensh own ; we af firm . On ap pe al , Dom in gu ez-De va ll e fi rs t ar gu es th atth e se nt en ci ng co urt erred by con si de rin g u nr el iabl e h ears ay in fo rm at io n c on ta in edinth e p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( “ PSI” ) -- tha t h is di ag no si s o f anan ti -s oc ia l p ers on al ity di so rd er m ad e h im

m or e li ke ly to en ga ge incri m in al act iv it ie s -- inim po si ng th e se nt en ce.

“ A sen te nc in g c ou rt m ay

co ns id er an y

in fo rm at io n, (i nc lu di ng he ars ay ), reg ard le ss of i ts adm is si bi li ty at tri al , inde te rm in in g wh ethe r fac ts ex is t tha t wo ul d en ha nc e a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e, pr ov id edth atth e ev id en ce h as su ffi ci en t i nd ic ia of rel iabi li ty, th e co urt m ak es ex pl ic itfin di ng s o f fac t as to cred ib il ity , andth e de fen da ntha s an op po rtu ni ty to re bu t the ev id en ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Ghertl er, 60 5 F .3d12 56 , 12 69 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . A defe nd an t h as a du e pr oc es s ri gh t, h owe ve r, no t t o b e se nt en cedba se d o n u nr el iabl e in fo rm at io n. Id . To p rev ai l o n ach al le ng e to a se nt en ce b as edon th e co ns id erat io n o f su ch in fo rm at io n, a d efen da ntm us t s ho w th at(1) th e ch al le ng edev id en ce was un rel iabl e, an d (2 ) th e ev id en ce ac tu al ly serv edas t he ba si s fo r th e se nt en ce. Id . The de fen da ntbe ars th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atth e co urt ex pl ic it ly reli edonth e ch al le ng edin fo rm at io n. Id . 2

Case: 11-14969 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 2 of 8Inco m pi li ng th e se ct io n t it le d “ Men ta l an d Em ot io na l Hea lth” in Dom in gu ez-De va ll e’s PSI, the pro ba ti on off ic er i nd ic at edth athe ha d i nc lu de d in fo rm at io n t ak endi rect ly from a 20 01 PSI, i nc lu di ng th at(in 19 95 ) th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Oh io ha d re ferr ed Dom in gu ez-De va ll e to a di ag no st ic cen te r to un de rg o aco m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on in a b idto ass es s h is co m

pe te nc y to st an d t ria l fo r a 1 99 4 c harg e o f il le ga l re en try aft er a p rev io us de po rta ti on . The 1 99 5 t es ti ng rev eal edth atDom in gu ez-De va ll e ha d “ si gn ifi can t an ti -s oc ia l t en de nc ie s” an d p os se ss edth e n eces sa ry cri te riaforan an ti -s oc ia l p ers on al ity

di so rd er d ia gn os is . The ev al ua to r ex pl ai ne d t ha t p eo pl e with a nt i-s oc ia l t en de nc ie s “ freque nt ly eng ag e in cri m in al act iv it ie s” an d “ do no t se em to lea rnfro m

ex pe rie nc e.” Inhi s i ns tantcas e, Dom in gu ez-De va ll e o bjec te d t o t he in cl us io n o f in fo rm at io n d eri ve d fr om th e p rev io us ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on be cau se he ha d ne ve r rec ei ve d aco py of th e rep ort o ut li ni ng th e res ul ts of t he ev al ua ti on . He furth er s tate d tha t h e d idno t kno w th e id en ti ty of th e ev al ua to r orth e ci rcu m st an ces surro un di ng th e co m pi la ti on of t he rep ort. At s en te nc in g, the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t b ecau se no th in g i nd ic at ed th atob jecti on s h adbe enlo dg edag ai ns t the 20 01 PSI, the co urt wo ul d n otstrik e

3 Case: 11-14969 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 3 of 8th e in fo rm at io n fr om th e cu rren t PS I. The d is tri ctco urt s ub se qu en tl y ad op te d a ll th e PSI’s fi nd in gs . Here, the di st ric t co urt d eem edth e h ears ay ev id en ce ab ou t Dom in gu ez-De va ll e’s m en ta l h eal thto be cred ib le ; an d i t i s atlea starg uabl e th at th e ev id en ce b ears a su ffi ci en t i nd ic iaof r el iabi li ty, gi ve n t ha t the in fo rm at io n was ge ne rat edina pr ev io us fed eral pro se cu ti on an d i nc lu de d i n aPSI. Inth is cas e, Dom in gu ez-De va ll e was , ho wev er, n ev er g iv enanop po rtu ni ty to re bu t the ev id en ce b ecau se he di d n otkn ow the so ur ce o f th e in fo rm at io n o r th e b as is for th e o pi ni on be y on d t he co nc lu so ry st at em en ts in cl ud edinhi s cu rren t PS I. W e 1 acce ptth athe was u nabl e to cro ss -ex am in e th e rep ort’s au th oror m ean in gf ul ly to ch al le ng e th e m etho do lo gy. See Gh ert le r, 60 5 F .3dat 1 26 9. Eve n t ho ug h t he PSI co nt ai ne d p ot en ti al ly unr el iabl e h ears ay tes ti m on y , we co nc lu de th atDom in gu ez-De va ll e fai le d t o d em on st rat e th atth e d is tri ctco urt ex pl ic it ly reli edon th e in fo rm at io n abo uthi s m en ta l h eal th (as op po se d t o h is ph y si cal he al th : a d iff

eren t p oi ntalt og ethe r) i n re ach in g t he sen te nc e. See i d. Th e To the extent that Domingue z-Devalle c ontends that he wa s denied his Six th Amendment 1 right to confrontation with re spect to the c halleng ed information, we have maintained -- post Crawf ord v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L .Ed.2d 177 (2004) - - that “[t] he right to confrontation is not a sentenc ing right.” United States v. Cantellano, 430 F .3d 1142, 1146 (11th Cir. 2005). Dominguez-Deva lle presumably had the oppor

tunity -- r eg ardle ss of whether taken - - to confr ont the author of the contested infor mation when the e valuation was conducte d in 1995 duringthe cour se of the prior criminal proc eeding s. 4 Case: 11-14969 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 4 of 8ps y ch ol og ic al di ag no si s was no t m en ti on edas acau se forth e se nt en ce s el ect edby

th e d is tri ctco urt. At s en te nc in g, the di st ric t co urt h ig hl ig ht edDom in gu ezDev al le ’s ext en si ve cri m in al hi st ory : h e h adbe ende po rte d o n t hr ee s ep arat e p rio r oc cas io ns an d i ll eg al ly retu rn edto th e Uni te d S ta te s af te r eac h d ep ortati on . Mo reo ve r, hi s cr im in al hi st ory co ns is te d o f ad di ti on al cri m es co m m it te d wh il e h e was il le ga ll y

inth e Uni te d S ta te s. As a res ul t, the co urt re as on edth atth e se nt en ce im po se d s ho ul d b e g reat er tha n the 46 -m on th an d 5 7- m on th sen te nc es Dom in gu ez-De va ll e h adrece iv edforth e p rio r il le ga l re en try vio la ti on s. Giv enth e ci rcu m st an ces , Dom in gu ez-De va ll e fai le d t o e st ab li sh th atth e d is tri ctco urt ei th er rel ie d o n t he ch al le ng edev id en ce o r th atth e ch al le ng edev id en ce ac tu al ly serv ed as th e b as is forth e se nt en ce. See Ghertl er, 6 05 F.3dat 1 26 9. Dom in gu ez-De va ll e m ai nt ai ns th at , bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt i s n otrequi red to st at e ex pl ic it ly all o f it s re as on s fo r im po si ng a se nt en ce, i t i s i m po ss ib le to de m on st rat e h ow s ig ni fic an tl y th e o bjec te d- to -ev id en ce wei gh edinth e co urt’s co nc lu si on . His a rg um en t i s wi th ou t m eri t. Our pr eced en t m ak es cle ar tha t Dom in gu ez-De va ll e b ears th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt ex pl ic it ly rel ie d o n t he co nt es te d i nf orm at io n; he ha s fa il edto m eetth is bu rd en . Dom in gu ez-De va ll e al so arg ue s tha t h is sen te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le ba se d o n a n i m pr op er wei gh in g o f th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s.

5 Case: 11-14969 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 5 of 8He as se rts th atth e d is tri ctco urt p la cedun du e st res s o n h is 19 92 co nv ic ti onfor

drug tra ffi ck in g anddi d n otpro pe rly con si de r po te nt ia l m it ig at in g fa ct or s, in cl ud in g h is ti es inth e Uni te d S tate s an d h is de te rio rat in g h eal th . W e rev ie w a fin al sen te nc e fo r pr oc edur al an d s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss . Uni te d S tate s v . Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3d13 19 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e ev al ua te th e subs ta nt 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, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 , 12 8 S .Ct. 5 86 , 59 7, 1 69 L.Ed. 44 5 (2 00 7) . The p arty

ch al le ng in g t he reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e b ears th e bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g t ha t the sen te nc e is un reas on ab le inth e li gh t o f bo th th e reco rdan d t he sec ti on 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Un it edSta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . 2 W e co nc lu de th atDom in gu ez-De va ll e’s 84 -m on th sen te nc e -- wh ic h fe ll withi n t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge -- was subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le . See i d. (n ot in g t ha 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 ra ng e to be reas on ab le ”). The sen te nc e was well be lo w th e st atut ory m ax im um of 2 0 years’ im pr is on m en t. See 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (b )(2 ); Un it edSta te s v . W in in ge ar, 4 22 F.3d

Under section 3553(a), a district c ourt should consider the nature a nd circ umstances of

the 2 offe nse, the history

and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt, the need f

or the sente nce to provide adequate deter

renc e, re spect for

the law, a

nd protec tion of the public, policy statements of the SentencingCommi ssion, provision for the medica l and educ ational nee ds of the def endant, a nd the nee d to avoid unwar

rante d sentenc ing dispa

rities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (1)- (7). 6 Case: 11-14969 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 6 of 812 41 , 12 46 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (co m pa rin g, as on e in di cat orof r eas on ab le ne ss , th e actua l p ris on term

im po se d a ga in stth e st atut ory m ax im um ). Dom in gu ez-De va ll e’s arg um en t tha t the sen te nc in g c ou rt d idno t p ro pe rly weig h t he rel ev an t s ect io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s p la in ly is b el ie d b y th e rec or d. Th e co urt n ot edhi s ex te ns iv e cri min al hi st ory ov er a 3 5- y ear p eri od , in cl ud in g dru g rel at edoff

en se s an d t wo p rio r fel on y co nv ic ti on s fo r il le ga l re en try afterpre vi ou s de po rta ti on . The co urt al so ex pl ai ne d t ha t i t wo ul d b e unr eas on ab le for Dom in gu ez-De va ll e n ow t o e xp ecta lo wer s en te nc e th aneit he r of hi s p rev io us se nt en ces foril le ga l re en try. A ltho ug h h e as se rts th atth e co urt fa il edto weig h pr op erl y va rio us m it ig at in g fa ct or s -- su chas h is he al this su es an d h is ti es to th e Uni te d S tate s -- th e wei gh t t o b e g iv ena pa rti cu la r fac to r is lef t t o t he so un d di sc ret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt, ab se nta cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t. See Uni te d S ta te s v. Pu gh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 91 (11 thCir . 20 08 ). Giv enDom in gu ez-De va ll e’s ex te ns iv e cri m in al hi st ory , hi s p ro pe ns ity for reci di vi sm , andth e n eedto de te r hi m fro m furth er cr im in al co nduc t, fo r th e d is tri ct co urt t o i m

po se th is sen te nc e wit hi n t he gu id el in es ran ge was re as on ab le . W e can no t s ay

th atth e se nt en ce fa il edto refl ectth e p ur po se s o f se nt en ci ng or tha t the di st ric t co urt co m

mit te d “ a cl ear e rro r of

jud gm en t i n wei gh in g t he [se ct 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 7 Case: 11-14969 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 7 of 8se nt en ces di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” See id . at 1 20 3. Do m in gu ez-De va ll e

ha s n otcarr ie d h is bu rd enof s ho win g t ha t h is sen te nc e is un reas on ab le .

AFFIRMED.

8 Case: 11-14969 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 8 of 8