FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT SEPT 9, 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN THCIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1002 4 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 14 04 7- CR-DLG UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JUAN ALEJANDRO VELEZ-NIEVE S, 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

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 9, 200 8) Be fo re BL A CK , MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s: PE R CU RIA M:2

Juan A le j an dr o V el ez -N ie ve s a

ppe al s hi s 108-m onth sentence im posed after he ple d gu ilty

to one c ount

of c onsp ir ac y

to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibute 500 gr am s or m or e of c oc ai ne hy dr oc hlo ri de , in vio latio n of 21 U . S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ) and 846 , and on e count of illegal re-e ntry after deportation, in viol ation of 8 U. S. C. § 132 6(a) and (b)(2). V elez- Nieves c ontend s his sentence was subs tanti ve ly

unr ea sona

ble . H e cl ai m s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by im posi ng a sentence w ithin the advisory Guidelines range af

ter the range was incre ased

“ es se nti al ly ” as ar es ult

of his status a s an il le ga l a lie n at the ti m e of the dr ug offense. Af ter United States v. B ooker , 125 S . Ct . 738 ( 2005 ), w e es ta bli she d atw opa rt p ro ces s fo r di st ric t co urts to us e in cal cu la ti ng sen te nc es . United States v. M cB rid e , 511 F . 3d 1 293, 129 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 7) . F ir st, the dis tr ic t c ourt m ust co nsul t and c or

re ct ly c al cu late the r an ge r ec om m en de d by

the S en te nc ing Guid el ine s. S ec ond, the dis tr ic t c ourt m ust f as hio n ar ea sona

ble se nte nc e in l igh t of th e fac to rs enum erat edin 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Id . The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is review ed under an abuse-ofdi sc ret io n s ta nd ard . U

nited Sta tes v . P ugh , 515 F . 3d 1 179, 119 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 8) (c iti ng Gall v. United States , 12 8 S . Ct. 5 86 , 59 7 (2 00 7) ). Und er thi s s ta nd ard , we wil l o nl y rev ers e if

th e d is tri ctco urt m ad e a cl ear e rro r of jud ge m en t. Id

. at 1 19 1.3

W e re view a sentence for substantive reasonableness in light o f the fa ctors li st edin § 3 55 3( a). M

cB rid e , 511 F . 3d at 12 96- 97. T hose f ac tor s are the fo llo w ing : (1 ) the ne ed

to re fl ec t the se ri ousn es s of the of fe nse , to pr om ote re spe ct f or the law , and t o pr ovi de j ust pun ish m en t f

or the of fe nse ; ( 2) the need for deter

rence; ( 3) the need to protect the publi c; (4) the nee d to provid e the m ost effec tive correc tional treatm ent or m edical car e; (5 ) the natur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse ; ( 6) the his tor

y and charac teristics of the defendant; (7) the Se ntencing Guidelin es range; an d ( 8) the ne ed

to av oid [ unw ar rante d] se nte nc ing dis pari tie s. Id . at 12 97 n . 1 ( ci tin g 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) ). H ow ev er , w e w ill not sub sti tut e our j udgm en t f

or that of the dis tr ic t c ourt by

r e- w ei ghi ng the r el ev an t f ac tor s f ro m § 3 55 3( a). United States v. A me deo , 48 7 F .3d82 3, 8 32 (11 th Cir .), cert. denied , 128 S. Ct . 671 ( 2007 ). T houg h w e do n ot p re sum e a se nte nc e w ith in the Gui de li ne s ra ng e is reas on ab le , U nited Sta tes v . Ca m

pbe ll , 491 F . 3d 1 306, 131 3 (1 1thCi r. 200 7) , w e have state d “ the re is a range of r ea sona ble se nte nc es f

ro m whic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt m ay c hoos e, and whe n th e dis tr ic t c ourt i m pose s a sentence w ithin the advisory Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a re asonable one,” United States v. T alley , 431 F . 3d 7 84, 788 ( 11th Ci r. 200 5) . “ [T ] he party

who c ha lle nge s th e se nte nc e be ar s th e bur de n of es ta bli shi ng that the se nte nc e is unr ea sona ble in the li ght

of both [ the ] r ec or d and the factors in section 3553 (a). ” Id .4

Ve lez-N ieves has failed to establish hi s 108-m onth sentence w as subs tantively

unreasonable. I n calculating the Guidelines range, the district court refr ained from

groupin g his conv ictions to gether because the tw o offenses constitu ted separate har

m s. T hen, pursuant to U.S .S .G . § 3D 1.4, the court applied a tw o-level increase to arrive at the a pplicable com

bined offense level. V elezN ie ve s do es not

c la im the c ourt c om

m itt ed pr oc ed ur al e rr or in ca lc ulatin g hi s Guid el ine s r an ge . I nst ea d, he c ont en ds the e ff ec t of the c ourt’ s c al cu latio n w as to inc re as e his se nte nc e ba se d onhis status a s an il le ga l a lie n, and a s ar es ult , the co urt s ho ul d h av e im

po se d asen te nc e b el ow t he advi so ry Gui de li ne s ra ng e. How ever, Ve lez-N ieves offer s no legal sup port for his claim that the court im pr ope rl y ba se d it s se nte nc e on h is s tatus a s an il le ga l a lie n. A ft er c or re ct ly ca lc ulatin g th e Guid el ine s r an ge , the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d th is s tatus arg um en t an d th e fa ct or s in§ 35 53( a) be fo re im posi ng a se nte nc e at

the lowe nd o f the ran ge . Ordi na ril y , we exp ectsu ch a se nt en ce t o b e rea so nabl e. See Talley , 431 F. 3d at 788 . The c ourt offere d a detailed explanation o f its sentence, notin g it was ba se d, i n p art , on th e n eedforde te rren ce an d the ser io us ne ss of t he off en se s. V el ez -N ie ve s’ s se nte nc e is w el l be lowthe statut or y m ax im um s of 40 y ears ’ im prisonm ent for the conspiracy count and 20 y ears’ im

prisonm ent for the illegal5

re -e ntr y c ount . T hus, a ft er

ar ev ie wof

the r ec or d and u

pon co nsi de ratio n of

the briefs of the parties, we discern no reversible er ror. AFFIRMED.