FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 16, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 10 23 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-2 08 13 -KMM -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us WALTER PEREIRA-FLORES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st16 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARTIN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: W al te r Pere ira -Fl or es ap pe al s h is 87 -m on th sen te nc e aft er p le ad in g g ui lt y to co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te at l eas t 1 00 ki lo gr am s o f m ari juan awhi le ab oarda ve ss el subjec t t o t he juri sd ic ti on of t he Uni te d S ta te s, i n v io la ti on

of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70 50 3( a), 7 05 06 (b ), an d 2 1 U.S.C. § 96 0( b) (2 )(G). On app eal , Pere ira -Fl or es arg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e is un reas on ab le be cau se th e co urt d idno t pr op erl y ap pl y th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, an d b ecau se itdi d n otco ns id er m it ig at in g fa ct or s. We con cl ud e th athi s s en te nc e is reas on ab le , andAFFIRM . I. Inth e ear ly m orni ng of S ep te m be r 9, 2 00 9, Un it edSta te s C oa stGuar d pe rs on ne l fo un d a n i dl e th irt y -fo otbo atinin te rn at io na l wat ers with i ts na vi ga ti on al li gh ts tu rn edoff . A m anon bo ard , who tu rn edou t t o b e Per ei raFl or es , was thr owi ng pa ck ag es in to th e wat er. The reco ve redpa ck ag es co nt ai ne d ap pr ox im at el y

30 3 k il og ram s o f m ari

juan a. Ano th er i nd iv idua l o n t he bo atlat er to ldau th or it ie s t ha t Pe rei ra-F lo res was p ay in g h im $3 0,0 00 forhi s h el p s m

ug gl in g th e m ari juan a in to th e Uni te d S ta te s fr om th e Bah am as . Pere ira -Fl or es pl ead edgu il ty to co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o di st rib ut e atlea st10 0 k il og ram s o f m ari juan a o n b oa rda ve ss el . The p ro ba ti on of fic er ca lc ul at edtwo cri min al hi st ory po in ts ba se d o n P erei ra-F lo res ’s two pri or co nv ic ti on s: en te rin g C ub anterrit or ia l wat ers with ave ss el , andfai lu re t o h eav e a ve ss el inde fia nc e o f anord er b y a fed eral law en fo rcem en t o ffi cer. Pere ira -Fl or es vi ol at edth e te rm s o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e fo r th e fi rs t o ffen se by commit ti ng th e 2pr es en t o ffen se an d b y no t re po rti ng an ot he r arre st(fo r a traff ic off en se ) to hi s pr ob at io n o ffi cer. He was a wait in g s en te nc in g fo r th e fai lu re t o h eav e o ffen se whe n h e was sen te nc edinth is cas e. The p ro ba ti on off ic er ad de d t wo p oi nt s t o Pere ira -Fl or es ’s cri m in al hi st ory be cau se he was o n s up erv is edrel eas e whe n h e co m m it te d t hi s o ffen se . See Un it edSta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s § 4A1 .1(d ) (No v. 2 00 9) . Perei ra-F lo res was a ss es se d fo ur cri m in al hi st ory

po in ts to ta l an d a cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory of I II, an d a n o ffen se lev el of 2 5, wh ic h yiel de d a Gui de li ne ran ge of 7 0 t o 8 7 m on th s i m pr is on m en t. The di stric t co urt n ot edth atPere ira -Fl or es ’s con du ctinth is off en se was si mil ar t o h is two pre vi ou s co nv ic ti on s (p res um ab ly becau se all th ree i nv ol ve d ve ss el s) , andsen te nc edhi m to 87 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t. Per ei ra-F lo res ’s att orne y ob jecte d, ar gu in g t ha t h is pri orco nv ic ti on s h adalr eady be enfact or edin to hi s cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory , andsh ou ldno t b e co ns id eredforsel ect in g asen te nc e. The di st ric t co urt s ta te d t ha t i t h adactua ll y co ns id eredsen te nc in g P erei ra-F lo res ab ov e th e Gui de li ne ran ge , gi ve n t ha t h e h as de m on st rat eda co ns is te ntdi sr eg ard fo r th e la ws o f th e Uni te d S ta te s s in ce h e en te redth is co un try. T he co urt sp eci fic al ly m en ti on edfou r § 3 55 3( a) fac to rs as i nf lu en ci ng th e se nt en ce: th e 1 The § 3553(a) fa ctors include: ( 1) the nature a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and the 1 history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d to refle ct the seriousness of the off ense, to promote respe ct for thelaw, and to pr ovide just punishment for the offe nse; (3) the need f or 3na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t hi s o ffen se , th e h is to ry an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f Pere ira
Fl or es , th e n eedto pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w andth e n eedto pro vi de de te rren ce. II. W e rev ie w Perei ra-F lo res ’s sen te nc e fo r rea so nabl en es s. Un it edSta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 85 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Our re vi ew is de fere nt ia l; we as k o nl y

“ whe th er the sen te nc e im po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt fa il s t o a ch ie ve th e p ur po se s o f se nt en ci ng as s ta te d i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a).” Id . at 7 88 . Whi le th e se nt en ce m us t b e bo th pro cedur al ly andsubs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le , see Uni te d S ta te s v . Sarra s, 5 75 F.3 d 1 19 1, 1 21 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) , Perei ra-F lo res do es no t i de nt ify any pr oc edur al erro r. Thu s, we fo cu s o uran al y si s o n wh ethe r hi s s en te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le ba se d o n t he fact or s h e id en ti fie s. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Docam po , 57 3 F.3 d 1 09 1, 1 10 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (li m it in g o urrev ie w of re as on ab le ne ss on ly to th os e fac to rs id en ti fie d b y th e p arty ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e). Pere ira -Fl or es m ak es th ree a rg um en ts th athi s s en te nc e atth e to p o f th e Gui de li ne ran ge is no t re as on ab le . Firs t, h e cl ai m s t ha t the di stric t co urt im pe rm is si bl y

co ns id eredth e fac t tha t h e co m m it te d t he off

en se whi le on
deter renc e; (4) the need to pr otect the public; (5) the nee d to provide the de fenda nt with needed educational or vocational trainingor medica l car e; (6) the kinds of sentenc es ava ilable; (7) the SentencingGuideline ra

ng e; (8) pe rtinent policy

statements of the Sente ncingCommi ssion; (9) the nee d to avoid unwanted se ntencingdisparities; and (10) the nee d to provide re stitut ion to victims. United St ates v. Ta lley , 431 F.3d 784, 786 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 4supe rv is edrel eas e, al th ou gh th is factwas a lre ady cal cu la te d i n h is cri m in al hi st ory . Seco nd , he c la im s t ha t the cir cu m st an ces of h is off en se were n ot pa rti cu la rly hei no us be cau se th ere was no hi gh sp eedch as e an d t he m ari juan a was reco ve red . Perei ra-F lo res als o c la im s t ha t the di st ric t co urt i m pe rm is si bl y

weig he d th e fac t tha t h e h aden te redth e Uni te d S ta te s i ll eg al ly, al th ou gh itap pe ars th atth e il le ga li ty of hi s en try was n ev er ac tu al ly establ is he d a t s en te nc in g, o nl y th athe was un de r rem ov al pro ceed in gs . 2 Altho ug h P erei ra-F lo res says th e d is tri ctco urt re li edonth es e fac to rs to th e ex cl us io n o f ot he r fac to rs , he d oe s n otid en ti fy whatfact or s t he co urt erro ne ou sl y om it te d. He d oe s n ot , forex am pl e, id en ti fy

an y pe rti ne ntba ck gr ou nd ch arac te ris ti cs or m it ig at in g fa ct s t ha t wo ul d h av e warra nt eda se nt en ce atth e lo w en d o f th e Gui de li ne ran ge . The d is tri ctco urt i s n otrequi redto di sc us s al l the fact or s. Un it edSta te s v . Am ed eo , 48 7 F .3d82 3, 8 32 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). It h as di sc ret io n t o g iv e g reat er wei gh t t o a ny sin gl e fac to r so lo ng as i t ac kn owl ed ge s, as th e co urt d idhe re, tha t i t h as co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Id .; s ee al so Uni te d St at es v. Go nz al ez, 5 50 F.3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (n ot in g tha t we d eferto

The re cord doe s not refle ct, for e x ample, whe ther the illeg ality of Pere ira-F lores’s 2 prese nce is due to his prior convictions or if he origina lly enter ed the c ountry

illega lly . Although he is under r emoval proc eeding s for illeg al pre sence , he has a valid social sec urity

car d for wor

k authorized by

the Depa rtment of Homela

nd Security . 5th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t i n wei gh in g t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s u nl es s i t h as m ad e a

cl earl y erro ne ou s ju dg m en t). W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt h adleg it im at e, art ic ul at edreas on s fo r se le ct in g t he 87 -m on th sen te nc e. The c ou rt c on si de redth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, an d po in te d t o s pe ci fic co nc ern s i t h adab ou t Pe rei ra-F lo res ’s pat te rnof c riminal be ha vi orinsu cha sh ort p eri odof t im e. It was ap pr op ria te forth e co urt t o co ns id er Pe rei ra-F lo res ’s pri orcri m in al act s i n fa sh io ni ng a se nt en ce, as th os e act s are r el ev an t t o s ev eral of the § 3 55 3( a) fac to rs . W e h av e h el d tha t a d is tri ctco urt m ay co ns id er fa ct s t ha t h av e al read y be enacco un te d fo r un de r th e Gui de li ne cal cu la ti on when sel ect in g asen te nc e b as edon th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Am ed eo , 48 7 F .3dat 8 33 –3 4. Fu rth erm or e, Pere ira -Fl or es ha s p oi nt edto no m it ig at in g fact or s t ha t m ak e h is sen te nc e unr eas on ab le . Alth ou gh th e se nt en ce i s atth e to p o f th e Gui de li ne ran ge , itis far b el ow the forty-y ear s ta tu to ry m ax im um for hi s of fen se . See 2 1 U.S.C. 9 60 (b )(2 )(G); see als o Go nz al ez, 5 50 F.3dat 1 32 4; Uni te d St at es v. Wini ng ear, 4 22 F.3d12 41 , 12 46 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). Becaus e Per ei raFl or es ’s 87 -m on th sen te nc e is reas on ab le , we AFFIRM .

6