FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 24, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 0- 14 20 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 01 23 -SDM- MAP-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us JOSE ANGEL MOYA-GARCIA, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 24 , 20 12 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, BARKETT andMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Jo se Ang el Mo y a-Gar ci a ap pe al s h is 57 -m on th sen te nc e im po se d fo r il le ga ll y re-e nt eri ng th e Uni te d S ta te s af te r ha vi ng be ende po rte d a s an ag gr av at edfel on , 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a) a nd(b) (2 ). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we

affi rm . On ap pe al , Mo y a-Gar ci a arg ue s tha t h is sen te nc e subs tant iv el y is
un reas on ab le be cau se th e co urt fa il edto gi ve pro pe r wei gh t t o h is cu ltur al
as si m il at io n arg um en t an d fo cu se d u nju st ifi ab ly on t he ne edto affo rdad equa te 1 de te rren ce. We eval 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 de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 5 97 (2 00 7) . The p arty

ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th at th e se nt en ce i s unr eas on ab le inth e li gh t o f bo th th e rec or d a ndth e se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fact or s. Un it edSta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Mo y a-Gar ci a fai le d t o s at is fy hi s b ur de n o f pr oo f. Fir st , hi s 5 7- m on th
se nt en ce i s atth e lo w endof t he 57 to 71 -m on th advi so ry gu id el in e se nt en ce
ran ge , andwe or di na ril y

ex pe cta gu id el in e se nt en ce t o b e rea so nabl e. See i d. at 78 7- 88 (co nc lu di ng th at , alt ho ug h n otpe r se reas on ab le , “ or di na ril y we wou ld
ex 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 ”). His sen te nc e is al so well be lo w th e 2 0- y ear s ta tu to ry m ax im um sen te nc e fo r hi s o ffen se . See 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6( b) (2 ); Un it edSta te s v . Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir
. Although the cultural assimilation guideline -- now set forth in U .S.S.G. § 2L 1.2, cmt. (n.8) -
- 1 was not in ef

fe ct during Moya-G arc ia’s sentenc ing hearing, he argued for a downwar d varia nce, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), ba sed on his cultural ties to the United States. 220 08 ) (co nc lu di ng th atth e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e m ay als o b e in di cat ed whe n the sen te nc e im

po se d was well be lo w th e st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e). Co nt rary to M oya-Garci a’s as se rti on , th e co urt s pe ntco ns id erab le ti m e di sc us si ng hi s cu ltur al ass im il at io n a rg um en t. Itackno wled ge d t ha t i t h adth e di sc ret io n t o v ary fro m

th e g ui de li ne ran ge ba se d o n M oya-Garci a’s cu ltur al
as si m il at io n anddi sc us se d e ach of t he fact or s s etforthinth e p ro po se d g ui de li ne . 2 See U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2, cmt. (n .8). Th e co urt ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t M oya-Garci a h ad
cu ltur al ti es with the Uni te d S ta te s b utco nc lu de d t ha t h e al so ha d c ul tu ral ti es with Mex ic o. Th e d is tri ctco urt was als o u nc on vi nc edth atMo y a-Gar ci a’s cu ltur al ti es were the “pr im ary m ot iv at io n” forhi s re -en try, not in g t ha t h is cri m in al hi st ory in di cat edth athe was a ls o m ot iv at edby econ om ic reas on s. Inth e li gh t o f Mo y a-Gar ci a’s wil li ng ne ss to re-e nt er the co un try ill eg al ly, th e co urt al so de te rm in edth ata lo wer s en te nc e wou ldin crea se th e ri skof h im do in g s o a ga in
. Altho ug h M oya-Garci a arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt re li edto o h eav il y on th e n eedfor

de te rren ce, the co urt’s d is cu ss io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s’ immig rat io n
U.S.S.G. § 2L 1.2, cmt. (n.8) provides that, in deter mining whether a downwar d depar ture based 2 on cultural a ssimil ation is appropria te, cour ts should consider whethe r: (A) the defe ndant formed cultural ties primarily with the United States from having resided continuously in the United States from childhood, (B ) those cu l tu ral ties provided the primary mo t i v at i o n for the defe ndant’s illega l ree ntry or continued prese nce in the Unit ed S tates, and (C) such a departure is not likely to incre ase the risk to the public from fur ther c rimes of the de fenda nt. 3la ws was als o re le va ntto ot he r se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, i nc lu di ng th e n eedfor a
se nt en ce t o re fle ctth e se rio us ne ss of a n o ffen se andto pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w. See 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 2) (A), (B). Mo reo ve r, th e wei gh t t o b e g iv ena pa rti cu la r se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or is lef t t o t he so un d d is cret 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 . Pug h, 5 15 F.3d11 79 , 11 91 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Becau se th e co urt d idno t “ fo cu s s in gl e-m in de dl y ” o n t he ne ed fo r de te rren ce t o t he de tri m en t o f th e o th er s ect io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, we s ee n o s uc h
erro r. See Un it edSta te s v . Cri sp , 45 4 F .3d12 85 , 12 92 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (co nc lu di ng a se nt en ce was un reas on ab le when th e d is tri ctco urt “ fo cu se d si ng le -m in de dl y

on th e g oa l o f res ti tu ti on to th e d etriment o f al l o f th e o th er
se nt en ci ng fact or s” ). Altho ug h h e co nc ed es th athi s g ui de li ne ran ge was c al cu la te d c orrect ly, Mo y a-Gar ci a al so arg ue s t ha t the ap pl ic at io n o f U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(A)(v ii )’s 16 -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on fortrans po rti ng il le ga l al ie ns
res ul te d i n a n u nr eas on ab le sen te nc e. Becaus e h e fai le d t o d em on st rat e th athi s fin al sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le , we rejectth is arg um en t. See Uni te d St at es v. Ma rti ne z, 43 4 F .3d13 18 , 13 22 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (s ta ti ng th atwe rev ie w th e fi na l s en te nc e fo r rea so nabl en es s, n ot“ each in di vi du al de ci si onm ad e dur in g th e se nt en ci ng pro ces s” ). AFFIR MED.

4