FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 13, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 44 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 02 02 -RAL-AEP-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 ALFONSO GALL EGOS-OLIVO, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 13 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Alfo ns o Gal le go s- Oli vo ap pe al s h is 18 -m on th sen te nc e, im po se d u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( e) fo r vi ol at io n o f th e co nd it io ns of h is supe rv is edrel eas e. He vi ol at edhi s s up erv is io n b y reen te rin g t he co un try ill eg al ly w it hi n two years o f hi s de po rta ti on , a cri m e fo r whi chhe was a ls o s ep arat el y pro se cu te d. Gall eg os -Oli vo arg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e, whi chis 6 m on th s h ig he r th anhi s ad vi so ry gu id el in e
se nt en ce, i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le . After c aref ul ly revi ewin g t he reco rdan d th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . Gall eg os -Oli vo ha s the bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g h is sen te nc e as un reas on ab le
. Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 thCir20 05 ). He do es no t cl ai m an y pr oc edur al de fectinhi s s en te nc in g, s o we p ro ceedto rev ie w th e se nt en ce fo r
subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s, u si ng anab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard . Uni te d S ta te s v . Pu gh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); Un it edSta te s v . Sweet in g, 4 37 F.3d 11 05 , 11 06 –0 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6)
. App lying th is st an da rd , we con si de r “ th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g the ex te ntof a ny vari an ce fr om th e Gui de li ne s
ran ge .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gall , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 , 59 7 (2 00 7) . W e di sturb asen te nc e o nl y

when we are “ 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 err or

of ju dg m en t i n wei gh in g t he § 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
se nt en ces di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Pu gh , 51 5 F .3dat 1 19 1 (quo ta ti on
2m ark s o mit te d) ; s ee 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e). 1

Ina rev oc at io n c as e, th e co urt s ho ul d s ta te it s re as on s fo r fi nd in g t ha t a de fen da nt ’s vi ol at io n o f th e co nd it io ns of s up erv is edrel eas e, an d t o ali m it ed
ex te ntth is de fen da nt ’s off en se an d h is to ry , are “ su ffi ci en tl y co m pe ll in g” to
supp ort a v ari an ce. Gal l, 5 52 U.S. at 5 0, 1 28 S. Ct. at59 7; see U.S.S.G. Ch. 7 , Pt. A 3(b ), in tro . comm en t. (s ta ti ng , ina rev oc at io n s en te nc in g, the di st ric t co urt

“ sh ou ldsan ct io n p rimaril y th e d efen da nt ’s bre ach of t ru st , whi le tak in g i nt o
acco un t, t o ali m it edde gr ee, the ser io us ne ss of the un de rlyin g v io la ti on an d t he cri m in al hi st ory

of t he vi ol at or .”). Acco rd in g t o Gal le go s- Oli vo ,“ th e b reac h o f trus t” in he ren t i n t he vi ol at io n of hi s co nd it io n o f supe rv is edrel eas e is alr eady tak enin to acco un t i n e st ab li sh in g th e g ui de li ne ran ge . Id. Giv enth athi s b reac h o f trus t i s i nt en de d t o b e th e
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) , when c ourts impose a sentenc e af ter re voking supe rvised 1 rele ase, the y

consider the se § 3553(a) fa ctors: (1) the nature and circ umstances of th e offe nse and the history and char acte ristics of the defe ndant; (2) the need for the sentenc e imposed – (B ) to a ffor d adequate deter

renc e to criminal conduct; (C) to pr otect the public from further crimes of the defe ndant; and (D) to provide the defe ndant with neede d educa

tional o r v o c a

ti o n a l tra ining , medical car e, or other corr ectional treatment . . .; (4) the kinds of sente nce a nd the sentenc ing r ang e [set forth in the sentenc ing guidelines]
. . . ; (5) any pertinent policy statement . . . ; (6) the nee d to avoid unwar

rante d sentenc e disparities among defe ndants with simil ar r ecor ds who have been f ound guilty of simil ar conduct; and (7) the need to pr ovide re stitut ion to any victims of the offe nse. § 3553(a) (1), ( a)( 2)(B )-( D), a nd (a) (4)- (7). 3“pr im ar[y] ” d et erm in an t o f hi s s en te nc e, id ., Gall eg os -Oli vo co nt en ds th at“ th e

reco rdis de vo idof areas on—o th er tha n [t he di st ric t co urt’s] pers on al op in io n ab ou t i ll eg al reen try—fo r im po si ng ” anup wardva ria nc e. In p art ic ul ar, h e n ot es th at“ th ere was no ex pl an at io n” of wh y hi s v io la ti on was d iff

eren t “ th anan y

ot he r il le ga l re en try.” Ourrev ie w of the reco rdlea ds us to co nc lu de th atitco nt ai ns su ffi ci en t
ex pl an at io n b y

th e d is tri ctco urt o f why a gu id el in e se nt en ce d idno t ad equa te ly ad dr es s t he fact s s urro un di ng Gall eg os -Oli vo ’s vi ol at io n. Du rin g t he sen te nc in g he ari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt re ferr edto bo th ge ne ral an d i nd iv idua l co ns id erat io ns in
m ak in g i ts sen te nc in g d eci si on , st at in g: I do n’t kn ow wha t we ha ve to do to d e t e r pe op le li ke Mr. [Gal le go s- ]O li vo . It’s be co m in g an ep id em ic
. W e pr os e cu te th em , we se nd th em to Fed eral pr is on , th ey ’re de po rte d an d th ey br azen ly co me ba ck in to ou r co un try. You kn ow, in m y vi ew, a se nt en ce withi n th e advi s o ry gu id el in e ran ge is jus t no t reas on ab le , in m

y vi e w , a se nt en ce of 18 m on th s is reas on ab le whe n I lo ok at al l th e st atut ory fact or s in te rm s of de te rri ng fu tu re cri m in al co nduc t, pr ot ect in g th e publ ic , whe n I lo ok at th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of hi s ne w cri m in al act iv it y , whe n I lo ok at hi s hi st ory an d c ha ract eri st ic s an d a ll th os e st atut ory fact or s. Earl ie r in th e h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt ex pr es se d c on cern th atGall eg os -Oli vo was
no t d et erre d b y

th e 2 4- m on thsen te nc e h e rec ei ve d fo r hi s o rig in al cri m in al
co nv ic ti on “ ‘caus e h e co m es ba ck .” The c ou rt a ls o n ot eda sp eci fic asp ectof h is
4cri m in al hi st ory —s ta te off

ic ia ls esc he wedpro se cu ti ng Gall eg os -Oli vo inst at e
co urt fo r th reat en in g h is fam il y m em be rs with agu n, i ns te adfav or in g fe de ral pr os ecu ti on forth e le ss er o ffen se of p os se ss in g afir earm as a n i ll eg al ali en . The c ou rt’s o bs erv at io n o f an“ ep id em ic ” o f il le ga l re en try didno t re nd er it s d et erm in at io n s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le . Rath er, the di st ric t co urt’s re fere nc e to a br oa de r na ti on al ph en om en on sh edli gh t o n wh y Gall eg os -Oli vo ’s parti cu la r type o f br each of t ru st

—h is il le ga l re en try—co nt rib ut edto th e “ se rio us ne ss of t he
un de rlyin g v io la ti on ” in a way no t al read y

in co rp or at edin to th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge . U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt . A 3(b ), in tro . comm en t (a ll owi ng th e co urt t o rel y “ to a li m it edde gr ee” o n the “ se rio us ne ss of t he un de rlyin g v io la ti on ” in
rev oc at io n s en te nc in g) . A dis tri ctco urt ju dg e is cert ai nl y pe rm it te d t o re fer t o wha t h e h as “ le arn edfro m si m il ar ca se s o ve r th e y ears ,” so lo ng as h e ti es th at ob se rv at io n t o t he in di vi du al he is sen te nc in g. Sh aw, 56 0 F .3dat 1 23 8. The di stric t co urt al so refe ren cedGall eg os -Oli vo ’s cri m in al hi st ory as a ba si s fo r th e v ari an ce, i n l ig htof c on si de rat io ns of d et erre nc e an d p ro te ct in g t he publ ic . Spe ci fic al ly, th e co urt ex pr es se d c on cern ov er Gal le go s- Oli vo ’s all eg ed in vo lv em en t i n am or e se rio us off en se forwhi chhe was n ev er p ro se cu te d. Th e
co m m en ta ry to th e g ui de li ne s m ak es cle ar tha t Gal le go s- Oli vo ’s cri m in al hi st ory
m ay be co ns id ered , th ou gh on ly “ to a li m it edde gr ee.” U.S.S.G., Ch . 7, Pt . A 3(b ),
5in tro . comm en t.

The di stric t co urt’s ex pl ic itrel ianc e o n t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, i .e. th e
se rio us ne ss of t he un de rlyin g o ffen se an d Gal le go s- Oli vo ’s cri m in al hi st ory , de m on st rat es th atth e co urt h as su ffi ci en tl y “ co ns id ered[th e] part ie s’ arg um en ts
an d h as a reas on edba si s” for im po si ng anup wardvaria nc e o f 6 m on th s. Ri tav. Uni te d S ta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 3 56 , 12 7 S . Ct. 2 45 6, 2 46 8 (2 00 7)
. AFFIRMED.

6