FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 10, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 05- 16271 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 0 3 1 - C R - F T M- 2 9 - DN F 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 F E L I P E R A S C O N D E L A C R U Z , a .k .a . M a r c o s F e lip e R o d r ig u e D e la c ru z , a .k .a . M a r c o s R o d r ig u e z , a .k .a . M ic h a e l S m ith S a m b r a n o , 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 10, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

F el i pe R as con D el ac ruz app ea l s hi s 96-m on th sent ence for i l l egal re entry i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s f

ol l ow i ng de port a t i on s ubs e que ntt o ac onvi c t i on f or c om m i s s i on of

a n a ggr a va t e d f

e l ony , i n vi ol a t i on of

8 U . S . C . §§ 1326( a ) a nd ( b ) ( 2 ) . We A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D D e l a c ruz or i gi na l l ye nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s w i thouti ns pe c t i on i n 1981 but e n c o u n te r e d B o r d e rP a tr o l a g e n ts a n dw a s d e p o rte dto M e x ic o . H e s u b s e q u e n tly re ent er ed the U ni t ed S t at es and w as conv i ct ed of tw o cou nt s of burgl ary of a d w e llin g in 1 9 8 6 . H e r e c e iv e d as e n te n c e o f o n e to f if te e n y e a r s o f

im p r is o n m e n t, s e rve d one y e a r , a nd the n w a s de port e d t o M e xi c o. F ourm onths l a t e r , D e l a c ruz a g a i n wa s l o c a t e d i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s . On J u l y3 1 , 1 9 8 7 , h e wa s c o n v i c t e do f two c ount s e a c h of

bur gl a ryof

adw e l l i ng a nd the f

tof af i r e a rm . I n A ugus t1987, D e l a c ruz w a s c onvi c t e d of a tt e m pt e d bur gl a ryof

adw e l l i ng. H e r e c e i ve d a se nt ence d o f one t o fi ft ee n years of i m pri sonm entfor the bu rgl ary and theft conv i ct i on s t o run concurrent l y w i th a fi ve-y ear s ent ence for the att em pt ed b u r g la ryc o n v ic tio n . H e s e rv e d f o rap p r o x im a te lyf

o u ry e a r s a n dw a s d e p o rte dto M e xi c o i n O c t obe r1991. I n 1997, he a ga i n w a s de port e d t o M e xi c o f ol l ow i ng c o n v ic tio n f

o rp e tit la r c e n y . I n F e b ru a ry2 0 0 5 , D e la c ru z w a s a rr e s te df o rd r iv in g w ith o u t alic e n s e .3

W h ile b e in g in te rv ie w e d b yth e B u r e au o f I m m ig r a tio n a n dC u s to m s E n f o r c e m e n t, D el ac ruz a dm i tt ed thathe w as a c i t i ze n o f M exi co and thathe previ ou sl y had been depo rt ed and h ad no tre ce i ved p erm i ss i on t o ree nt erthe U ni t ed S t at es . In ac co rd an ce w ith U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 , th e p ro b atio n o ff icerd eter m in ed D elac ru z’s a dj us t e d of

f e ns e l e ve l t o be 24, w hi c h i nc r e a s e d the ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of

8 by s ix te e n le v e ls b e c au s e o f D e la c ru z ’s p r e v io u s d e p o rta tio n s f o rc r im e s o f

v io le n c e . D e l a c ruz r e c e i ve d athr e e - l e ve l r e duc t i on f ora c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i typur s ua nt t o U . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1( a ) a nd ( b) , w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n at ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l of

21. T he p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e rc a lc u la te d 1 3 c r im in a l h is to ryp o in ts , w h ic h in c lu d e dth r e e p o in ts f ore a c h of

the thr e e f

e l onyc onvi c t i ons i n 1987. D e l a c ruz a l s o r e c e i ve d one poi nt for e ac h o f s i x con vi ct i on s of r et ai l , pet i t , and g rand theft , w hi ch w er e c ou nt ed as on l y f ou r poi nt s und erU . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 1(c) . A dd i t i on al l y, the prob at i on offi ce r n o t ed i n th e P resen t en ce In v est i g at i o n R ep o rt(“ P S I”) n i n e o th er co n v i ct i o n s, i ncl ud i ng a f

el on y burgl ary c on vi ct i on i n 1 98 6, for w hi ch no po i nt s w er e a ss i gn ed p u r s u a n tt o U . S. S. G . § 4 A 1 . 2 ( e ) ( 3 ) , r e q u i r i n g as e n t e n c e t o b e w i th i n ac e rt a i n t i me p e r io d to c o u n t, a n d U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .2 ( c ) ( 1 ) , e x c lu d in g s e n te n c e s f o rc e rta in m i s de m e a nora nd pe ttyof f e ns e s . T he 13 c r i m i na l hi s t orypoi nt s pl a c e d D e l a c ruz i n a cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory of V I. W i th thi s c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory and an o f f e n s e le v e l o f

2 1 , th e r e c o m m e n d e dr a n g e w a s 7 7 - 9 6 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t.4

T h is r a n g e is w ith in th e s ta tu to rym a x im u m s e n te n c e o f 2 0 y e ar s . 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) . De l a c ru z ' s c o u n s e l a r g u e dth a tac r i m i n a l h i s t o ryc a t e g o ryo f VI ov er st at ed hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory and thata c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I V or V w ou l d b e m ore app ropri at e. A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , D el ac ruz' s c ou nsel expl ai ned h i s r equestfor a dow nw a r d de pa rtur e on D e l a c ruz ' s c r i m i na l hi s t oryc a t e gory . H e a r gue d tha tthe bu rgl ary c on vi ct i on s, w hi ch w er e the m ostse ri ou s off ense s l i st ed i n the P S I, had o c c u rr e d o v e rf

if te e n y e a r s b e f

o r e a n dw e r e c o u n te do n lyb e c au s e D e la c ru z 's i ncar ce ra t i on peri od for tho se offe nses w as w i thi n fi ft ee n years . D ef ense coun se l c o n te n d e d th a t h is m o r e r e c e n t o f f e n s e s w e r e m in o r , s u c h a s p e ttyth e f t. T h e d is tr ic t ju d g e n o te d h is au th o r ityto d e p a rt d o w n w a r du n d e rU .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .3 ( b ) a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t d o w n w a r dd e p a rtu r e w a s n o t w a rr a n te d . R 3 a t 6 - 7 . T he j ud ge foun d thatthe as si gn ed ca t egory of V I w as approp ri at e, gi ven D el ac ruz’ s hi st ory of c om m i tt i ng cr i m es w hi l e i n the U ni t ed S t at es un l aw ful l y a t vari ou s t i m es ov era tw enty- ye arperi od . Id. T he j ud ge then ado pt ed the fa ctual s ta te m e n ts a n d ap p lic a tio n o f th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s s e t f o rth in th e P S I . D el ac ruz' s c ou nsel al so ar gu ed thatthe di stri ctj ud ge shou l d i m po se a s e n te n c e b e lo w th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s r a n g e a n dr e q u e s te da6 0 - m o n th s e nt e nc e . T he gove rnm e nta s ke d the j udge t o i m pos e as e nt e nc e w i thi n the5

S ent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange and n ot ed D el ac ruz’ s pri or depo rt at i on s and cr i m i nal hi st ory. A ft erhear i ng these ar gu m ent s, the j ud ge no t ed thatD el ac ruz had been d e p o rte d f

o u rtim e s a n d s ta te d : “I n lo o k in g a t y o u rc r im in a l h is to ry , it c e rta in ly d o es n o tj u st i fy a sen t en ce o f b el o w th e g u i d el i n es. If an yth i n g , i tw o u l dj u st i fy a s e nt e nc e t ow a r d the hi gh e nd. ” I d. a t11. T he j udge the n s e nt e nc e d D e l a c ruz t o 96 m onths of

i m pr i s onm e nta nd e xpl a i ne d tha the ha d c ons i de r e d the S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s r a n g e a n d th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . I d . F ol l ow i ng the pr onounc e m e ntof the s e nt e nc e , the j udge r e pe a t e d tha the “i m p o se d a s en ten ce at th e h ig h en do f th e g u id elin es b as ed u p o n th e C o u rt’s c ons i de r a t i on of

the f a c t or s s e tf

orth i n T i t l e 18, U ni t e d S t a t e s C ode , S e c t i on 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) th r o u g h ( 7 ) .” I d . a t 1 3 . T h e ju d g e th e n a d v is e dD e la c ru z o f h is r ig h t to appe a l , a s ke d i f

the r e w a s “ a ny thi ng e l s e , ” a nd r e c e i ve d ne ga t i ve r e s pons e s f r om c o u n s e l. I d . a t 1 4 - 1 5 . I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n appe a l , D e l a c ruz ' s c ouns e l a r gue s tha tthe 96- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc ourtw a s unr e a s onabl e a nd gr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ryt o c om portw i th the purpos e of

§ 3553. D e f

e ns e c ouns e l r e l i e s on the a r gum e nt s he r a i s e d a tthe s e n te n c in g h e a r in g a s f

a c to r s in d ic a tin g th e u n r e a s o n ab le n e s s o f D e la c ru z 's s e nt e nc e , pa rt i c ul a r l yf

oc us i ng on the l e ngth of t i m e s i nc e the f

e l onyc onvi c t i ons6

and the m i no r nature of the subsequentconv i ct i on s. D el ac ruz' s c ou nsel al so st at es th a t D e la c ru z p r o v id e s f in a n c ia l s u p p o rt f

o rh is f o u rc h ild r e n a n dis w illin g to u n d e r g o tr e a tm e n t f

o rap r io rs u b s ta n c e ab u s e p r o b le m . W e ha ve he l d tha t“ ' [ i ] n r e vi e w i ng the ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e i m pos e d bythe d is tr ic t c o u rt f

o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s , w e c o n s id e rth e f in a l s e n te n c e , in its e n tir e ty , in lig h t o f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s .'” U n ite dS ta te s v . M a rtin , 4 5 5 F .3 d1 2 2 7 , 1 2 3 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2006) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . S om e of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s i nc l ude the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of

the of f e ns e , the hi s t orya nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the de f e nda nt , the n e e d to r e f

le c t th e s e r io u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e , to p r o m o te r e s p e c t f o rth e la w , a n d to pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm e ntf orthe of f e ns e , the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge , a nd the ne e d t o a voi d unw a rr a nt e d s e nt e nc e di s pa r i t i e s . 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . T he s e n te n c in g ju d g e n e e d n o t s ta te o n th e r e c o r dth a t h e o rs h e h a s e x p lic itly co n si d ered each fact o r an d n eed n o td i scu ss each fact o r. U n i t edS t at es v . T al l ey, 431 F . 3d 784, 786 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . A n a c know l e dgm e ntbythe d is tr ic t ju d g e th a t h e o rs h e h a s c o n s id e r e dth e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s w ill s u f

f ic e . I d . T he re as on abl enes s r evi ew i s “ ' defe re nt i al , ' ” and the bu rden of prov i ng that th e s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le in v ie w o f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s r e s ts o n th e p a rty chal l engi ng the se nt ence . U ni t ed S t at es v. V al no r, 45 1 F . 3d 74 4, 75 0 (11 th C i r. 2006) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . W e f urthe rha ve he l d tha t , a l though as e nt e nc e w i thi n the7

S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge w i l l notbe c ons i de r e d pe rs e r e a s onabl e , “ w he n the d i s tr i c tc o u rti m p o s e s as e n t e n c e wi th i n th e a d v i s o ryGu i d e l i n e s r a n g e , we o r d in ar ilyw ill e x p e c t th a t c h o ic e to b e ar e a s o n ab le o n e .” T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 da t 7 8 8 . A t th e s en ten cin g h ea rin g , th e d istrict j u d g e c o n sid er ed D elac ru z’s a r gum e nt s r e ga r di ng hi s c r i m i na l hi s t orybyhi s c ouns e l . N one the l e s s , the j udge i m pos e d as e nt e nc e a tthe hi gh e nd of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge be c aus e of D e la c ru z ’s r e p e a te d r e e n tr ie s in to th e U n ite dS ta te s f o llo w in g d e p o rta tio n a n dh is tw enty- ye arpatt ern o f c ri m i nal ac t i vi ty. T he di stri ctj ud ge al so re cogn i ze d D e la c ru z ’s r e q u e s t to e n te ras u b s ta n c e - ab u s e p r o g r a m b yo r d e r in g h im to pa rt i c i pa t e i n atr e a tm e ntpr ogr a m . T hus , the j udge ’ s rul i ng r e f l e c t s c ons i de r a t i on of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s , i nc l udi ng the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e , the hi s t orya nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of D e l a c ruz , the ne e d f

orthe s e nt e nc e t o r e f

l e c tthe s e r io u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e , p r o m o te r e s p e c t f

o rth e la w , p r o v id e ju s t p u n is h m e n t, and the advi soryS ent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange. F urtherm ore, the di stri ctj ud ge tw i ce expl i ci t l y s t at ed thathe had con si dere d the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge a nd the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S cott , 42 6 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 30 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( af fi rm i ng the defendant ’ s s ent enceAlthough thedistrict judgefailed to e licit fully articulated objections following 1 imp os iti on

of thesentenc ein ac c orda

nc ewith Unite d State s v . Jon e s, 89 9 F .2 d 1 09 7, 11 02 (1 1th Cir. 1990), overr

uled in part on other

grounds by

United States v. Morrill, 984 F.2d 1136, 1137 (11th Cir. 1993) (en banc)(per curiam), he did ask if e ither par ty had any thing f urther to add, and they responde d neg atively . Delacruz’s arguments on appeal werearticulated fully to the district judge , and the record before us is sufficient for mea ningf ul appellate review. United States v. Cruz, 946 F.2d 122, 124 n.1 (11th Cir. 1991). 8 w he r e the j udge c l e a r l yc ons i de r e d the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s ) . A ddi t i ona l l y , the

1 se nt ence i m po se d i s w el l bel ow the st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence of tw enty y ears of im p r is o n m e n t, a n d th e d is tr ic t ju d g e w a s b o u n do n lyb yth is c e ilin g . 8 U .S .C . § 13 26 (b)( 2); se e, e. g. , U ni t ed S t at es v. W i ni ng ear, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 46 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ) ( af

fi rm i ng the defendant ’ s s ent ence as re as on abl e w here , a m o n g o th e rc o n s id e r a tio n s , it w a s o n e - te n th o f th e s ta tu to rym a x im u m s e n te n c e ) . T here fore , D el ac ruz has no tm ethi s burden o f s ho w i ng thatthe di stri ctcourt i m po se d an u nrea sonabl e s ent ence . I I I . CONCL US I ON D e la c ru z h a s c h a lle n g e d h is 9 6 - m o n th s e n te n c e a f te rp le a d in g g u iltyto unl a w f ul r e e ntryi nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s f ol l ow i ng de port a t i on a f t e rc onvi c t i on f

or c o m m is s io n o f

a n a g g r a v a te d f

e lo n yin v io la tio n o f

§ § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) an d( b ) ( 2 ) . B ec ause D el ac ruz di d n otm ee thi s burden o f s ho w i ng thatthe di stri ctcourt i m p o sed an u n reaso n ab l e sen t en ce, h i s sen t en ce i s AF F I RME D.