[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-15007

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-14008-KMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALLEN RAMDATT,

a.k.a. Kenneth Molloy,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 31, 2014)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-15007 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Allen Ramdatt, having pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States 

by a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), appeals his 

sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, imposed to run consecutively to an 

undischarged state sentence. Ramdatt argues his sentence is procedurally 

unreasonable. Upon review,1 we reject Ramdatt’s argument and affirm his 

sentence.

Ramdatt argues his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the 

district court failed to explain its reasons for imposing it consecutively to the state 

sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (describing “fail[ure] 

to adequately explain the chosen sentence” as a “significant procedural error”). 

This argument is without merit because the district court expressly stated that it 

had “considered the statements of all parties, the presentence report, which 

contains the advisory guidelines, and the statutory factors as set forth in [18 U.S.C. 

§] 3553(a).” Ramdatt rejects this explanation as “a simple pro forma

acknowledgement of § 3553(a),” but we approved a materially identical statement 

in United States v. Alfaro-Moncada. 607 F.3d 720, 735 (11th Cir. 2010); see also

United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[N]othing in Booker 

or elsewhere requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly 

 1 We review the reasonableness of a sentence, including whether it is imposed 

consecutive to or concurrent with another sentence, for abuse of discretion. See United States v. 

Bonilla, 579 F.3d 1233, 1244-45 (11th Cir. 2009). “The party challenging the sentence bears the 

burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable.” United States v. Bane, 720 F.3d 818, 

824 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Case: 13-15007 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the § 3553(a) 

factors.”). The district court’s explanation of the sentence it imposed was 

sufficient to show that it had “considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a 

reasoned basis for [its] own legal decisionmaking authority,” and it is therefore 

sufficient for our review. United States v. Livesay, 525 F.3d 1081, 1090 (11th Cir. 

2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is particularly true given that the 

district court’s decision was consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines’ preference 

for consecutive terms of imprisonment for sentences imposed at different times. 

See United States v. Ballard, 6 F.3d 1502, 1506 (11th Cir. 1993) (recognizing this 

preference); see also Livesay, 525 F.3d at 1090 (“Generally, when sentencing 

within the advisory Guidelines range, the district court is not required to give a 

lengthy explanation for its sentence if the case is typical of those contemplated by 

the Sentencing Commission.”). Neither of Ramdatt’s arguments for leniency 

(specifically, that he desired to return to his family and that it would cost the 

United States more to imprison him for a longer time) necessitated further 

discussion by the district court.

Accordingly, we conclude that the sentence the district court imposed was

not procedurally unreasonable.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-15007 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 3 of 3