FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 9, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 15 26 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-2 05 75 -CM A-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MAXWE LL GEO RGE FRANKLYN, a.k .a. Cas hm or e Fo rres te r, a.k .a. Terry

Lee Tay lo r, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen 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 forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 9 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Afte r Max well Geor ge Fran kl yn p le d g ui lty to il le ga l re -en try by

a co nv ic te d fel on , invi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6( a) an d (b )(2 ), th e d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edhi m to a pr is on term

of 7 0 m on th s, a s en te nc e atth e lo w endof t he Gui de li ne s se nt en ci ng ran ge . He no w app eal s the sen te nc e, rai si ng two is su es : (1 ) whe th er the di st ric t co urt’s s ta te m en t atth e se nt en ci ng he ari ng th atth e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s se nt en ci ng ran ge was “pr es um pt iv el y reas on ab le ” co ns ti tu te s p ro cedur al erro r, an d (2 ) whe th er the di st ric t co urt i m po se d asubs tant iv el y

un reas on ab le sen te nc e b y fai li ng to affo rdad equa te weig htto hi s p ers on al hi st ory an d c ha ract eri st ic s. Fran kl yn d idno t o bjec t t o t he di st ric t co urt’s s ta te m en t tha t the ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng e is pre su m pt iv el y reas on ab le . Thu s, t o p rev ai l o n tha t is su e, he m

us t s ho w th atth e co urt (1 ) erre d; (2) th e err orwas p la in ; an d (3 ) it affe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba co n , 59 8 F .3d77 2, 7 77 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). If th es e el em en ts are p res en t, we m ay ex erci se ou r di sc ret io n t o v acat e th e di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t an d re m an d t he cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs if “ th e err or se rio us ly affect s the fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Id . (quo ta ti on om it te d) . W e res ol ve th e fi rs t i ss ue ag ai ns t Fr an kl yn, be cau se th e err ordi d n otaffe ctFran kl y n’s s ub st an ti al rig ht s, an d turn t o t he sec on d is su e, whe th er h is sen te nc e is subs tant iv el y reas on ab le .

2A sen te nc e is subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le if i t “ fai ls to ach ie ve th e p ur po se s of sen te nc in g a s s ta te d i n [1 8 U.S.C. § ] 35 53 (a).” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d 78 4, 7 88 (11 Cir . 20 05 ). Pur su an t t o § 35 53 (a), the sen te nc in g c ou rt m us t i m po se th a se nt en ce “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er tha n n eces sary ,” to refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of th e o ffen se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , de te r cri m in al co nduc t, p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m futur e cri m in al co nduc t b y th e de fen dant , andpro vi de th e d efen da ntwith n eed ededuc at io na l o r vo cat io na l tra in in g o r m ed ic al care . 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). The co urt m us t al so co ns id er the na ture an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se , th e h is to ry

an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e de fen dant , th e k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e, th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ran ge , th e p ert in en t p ol ic y st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si on , th e n eedto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s, an d t he ne edto pro vi de res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1) , (3) -(7 ). A di st ric t co urt ab us es it s d is cret io n wh enitba lanc es th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s un reas on ab ly or pl aces un reas on ab le weig hton a si ng le fact or . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 92 -9 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) ( en ba nc ), cer t. d en ie d , (U.S. Apr. 4 , 20 10 ) (No . 10 -7 27 ). W e wil l re m an d fo r res en te nc in g wh en“ le ft wi th th e d efi ni te an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n weig hi ng th e § 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 3of

reas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Pugh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo tati on om it te d) . W e fi ndno th in g i n thi s re co rdto in di cat e th atth e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto co m pl y with the se sen te nc in g p rin ci pl es an d o bjec ti ve s. Fra nk lyn’s sen te nc e is th eref or e subs tant iv el y

reas on ab le . AFFIRMED.

4