F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Ap ril 5, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

________________________ N o. 05- 1541 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

________________________ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 60 15 2- CR-J AL UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RICHAR D ALLE N STUMPNER a . k . a . R i c h ar d Al l e n An t h o n y, a . k . a . R o mi e Ad d i s o n C r a w l e y, a . k . a . J a c kC a d y, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

________________________ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rn D istri ct

of F lorida

___________________ (A pr il 5, 200 6) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BI N A a nd W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:On appe al, Stumpner does not challeng e the district court’s denial of his motion for a minor 1 role a djustment; t here fore , such c l aim is abandone d. See Un ite d S tate s v . S c ott , 426 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 A ppe lla nt R ic hardA lle n S tum pne r ap pe al s hi s 29 2 m onth se nte nc e fo r conspiracy , possession , a nd int ent to dist ribute cocaine, and poss ession o f a fi re arm byac onvi ct edf

el on a nd f

ugi tiv e, in vio la tio n of

21 U . S. C. §§ 9 63, 846 , 841( a) (1 ), a nd 1 8 U . S. C. §§ 9 22( g) (1 ) an d ( 2) , a nd arg ue s it w as unr ea sonable under United States v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 , 125 S . Ct . 738 , 160 L . E d. 2d 6 21 (2 005) . S pe ci fi ca lly , S tum pne r ar gue s th at

his se nte nc e is e xc es siv e an d unr ea sonable a nd b ec au se he is an e lde rl y , 74- y ear old , m anw ho s uf fe re d f ro m long -term drug addictio n, the purposes of sentencing would be satisfied by a m uch shorte r te rm

of c ust ody . S tum

pne r al so arg ue s th at

his se nte nc e is u nr ea sonable 1 be cause the dis tric t c ourt di d no t a na ly ze the se nte nc ing f ac tor s se t f

orth i n 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) . S tum

pne r fu rthe r ar gue s th at

the dis tric t c ourt f

oc use d on one fa ct or se t f orth i n 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) (4 ), the se nte nc ing r an ge , but didnot an al y ze his arg umen t tha t a le ngthyse nte nc e be low the a dvi sory gui de lin e ra nge w as suf fi ci en t. I n a ddi tio n, S tum pne r ar gue s th at

the dis tric t c ourt di d no t men tio n a se co nd f

ac tor , § 35 53( a) (1 ) (the na tur e an d c ir cu m sta nc es of the of fe nse a nd histo ryand charac teristics of the defendant), in pronou ncing hi s sentence.3

W e ha ve “

j ur isd ic tio n un de r §374 2( a) (1 ) to r ev ie w se nte nc es f or unreasonableness.” United States v. M artin ez , 434 F. 3d 13 18, 1322 (11t h Cir. 2006 ). Se nte nc es im

pose d un de r an a dvi sory gui de lin es sy ste m are r ev ie w edf

or reas on ab le ne ss . United States v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 , 261 , 125 S . Ct . 738 , 765 , 160 L. E d. 2d 621 (200 5). Following the Booker de ci sio n, w e state d th at

the dis tric t c ourt m

ust f ir st c orre ct lyc al cu la te the de fe nda nt’ s gu ide lin e ra nge , the n, using the 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a) sentencing fac tors, the court ca n im pose a m ore se ve re o r m or e le ni en t s en te nc e as lo ng as i t i s re as on ab le . United States v. Cr aw for d , 407 F . 3d 1 174, 117 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . F urthe rmor e, “ [r ] ev ie w f or reasonableness is deferential. ” United States v. T alley , 431 F . 3d 7 84, 788 ( 11th Ci r. 200 5) . “ [T ] he party w ho c ha lle nge s th e se nte nc e be ar s th e bur de n of es tabli shi ng tha t the se nte nc e is u nr ea sonable in the li ght of both th [e ] r ec or d a nd the factors in section 3553 (a). ” Id . A sentence w ithin the advisory guidelin es ra nge is not per se reas on ab le , bu t i s ex pe ct ed to be reas on ab le . Id . T he spe ci fi c fa ct or s to be take n in to c onsi de ratio n un de r a re as onable ne ss rev ie w are t ho se fou nd in 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). See Booker , 543 U . S. a t 26 1, 125 S. Ct . a t 76 5. T he f

ac tor s to be c onsi de re d in cl ude :4

(1 ) the na tur e an d c ir cu m sta nc es of the of fe nse a nd the his tory a nd charac teristics of the defendant; (2) the need f or the sentence im

posed

-- (A ) to r ef

le ct the se ri ousn es s of

the of fe nse , to pr om ote r es pe ct f or the law, and to provid e j ust pu nishm ent for the offe nse; (B) to af ford ad eq ua te de te rr en ce to crimina l c ondu ct ; ( C) to pr ote ct the pub lic fr om f urthe r crimes of

the de fe nda nt; a nd ( D ) to p ro vid e the de fen da ntwit h n eed ed [tr eat m en t]. . . . 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a). W e ha ve he ld, “ nothin g in Booker or e lse w he re r eq uir es the dis tric t c ourt t o state on the r ec or d th at

it ha s e xpl ic itl y c onsi de re d e ac h of the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s or to discus s each of the § 3553(a) fa ctors.” U nit ed Sta te s v . Sc ott , 426 F . 3d 1 324, 1329 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . A cc or din gly , w e do n ot r ev ie w f or the spe ci fi c enum eration of the § 3553(a) fac tors; rather w e use those factors to determ ine if a se nt en ce i s re as on ab le . Id . Fu rt h er m o re , we h av e h el d th ata d i s tri ctco u rt ’s state m en t tha t i t ha s c onsi de re d th e § 35 53( a) f ac tor s is a lon e suf

fi ci en t i n post - Booker

sen te nc es to in di cat e th atitco ns id ered th e fac to rs . Id . W e ha ve he ld that the de fe nda nt’ s se nte nc e w as r ea sonable w he n th e dis tric t c ourt a cc ur at el y ca lc ulate d th e gui de lin e ra nge , state d th at it ha d c onsi de re d th e § 35 53( a) f ac tor s, an d s en t en ce d th e d ef

en d an tatth e l o w e n d o f t h e r an g e w h i ch re fl ec t ed th e c o u rt ’s co ns id erat io n o f hi s ev id en ce i n mit ig at io n. See Sc ott , 42 6 F .3d at 1 33 0. The sentencing guidelin es present policy statem ents sug gest that “ [a] ge m ay be ar ea son to d ep art do w nw ar d in ac as e in w hic h th e de fe nda nt i s e lde rl y a nd5

infirm . . . .” U .S .S .G . § 5H 1.1. In addition, the policy statem ents provid e that

“ [d] rug or alcohol depend ence or abuse is no t a re ason for a downw ard departure. ” U.S.S.G. § 5 H1.4 . H er e, the r ec or d de m onstrate s th at the dis tric t c ourt c onsi de re d th e § 355 3(a) f

actors, accurately calculated the guideline range, a nd sentenced St umpn er atth e lo w end of t he gu id el in es ran ge . See Sc ott , 42 6 F .3d at 1 33 0. First, the district court explicitly m entioned it s consid eration of the § 3553(a) fa ct or s w he n it

state d, “ [t ] he Co urt . . . ha s c onsu lte d a nd t ak en int o a cc ount the ad vis ory se nte nc ing gui de lin es a s w el l a s th e se nte nc ing f ac tor s e numer at edin [§ 355 3( a) ] , inc lud ing the ne edf or the se nte nc e in this c as e to r ef le ct the se ri ousn es s of

the of fe nse , to pr om ote r es pe ct f or the la w a nd t o pr ovi de j ust puni shm ent, a dequate deterre nce and to protect the publi c. ” See W ini nge ar , 422 F.3 d a t 1 24 6. Se co nd, the dis tric t c ourt e xpl ic itl y m en tio ne d it s c onsi de ratio n of Stum pne r’ s arg umen ts w he n it state d, “ [t ] he Co urt ha s c onsi de re d th e state m en ts of the part ie s . . . . ” T he dis tric t c ourt r ej ec te d S tum pne r’ s arg umen t tha t he sho uld rece ive a lesser sentence because he w as 74-y ears old and the recomm ended guid eline range w ould practica lly im pose a life sentence. T he district court co nc lud edthat S tum

pne r’ s c ri mina l hi sto rya nd the se ri ousn es s of the ins ta nt6

of fe nse s ou tw ei ghe d hi s e lde rl y status a nd w ar ra nte d ase nte nc e w ith in the reco mm en de d g ui de li ne ran ge . See U . S. S. G . § 5H 1. 1. Mo re ove r, S tum pne r did not pr es en t a nye vid en ce to show that he w as inf irm or unable to ha ndl e in carc erat io n. Stum pne r’ s arg umen t tha t he sho uldr ec ei ve ar ed uc edse nte nc e be cause he ha s su ff er edf ro m lon g- te rm

drug a ddi ct ion f

ai ls b ec au se e ve n un de r the se nte nc ing gui de lin es pol ic y state m en ts, drug o r al co hol de pe nde nc e or abuse is no t a v al id reas on forde pa rtu re. For the fore goin g reasons, w e af firm Stum pner’ s sentence. AFFIRMED.