FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T OCTOB ER 17, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 02 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 9- cr-0 03 63 -J EC-AJ B-1
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us
LAW ANDA MOODY,
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 ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 1 7, 2 01 1)
Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:
Lawan da Mo od y

ap pe al s fr om

he r se nt en ce o f 12 m on th s and 1 d ay for ba nk
frau d, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 13 44

. On ap pe al , sh e arg ue s th at he r se nt en ce wass u b s t a n ti ve ly un reas on ab le in li gh t of he r lo w ris k of reci di vi sm
. Afte r th or ou g h

rev ie w, we affi rm
. W e rev ie w t he se nt en ce a di st ric t co ur t im po se s fo r “ reas o n a b le ne ss ,” whi ch

“ m erel y as ks whe th er th e tri al c o u r t a b u s ed it s di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Pu gh , 51 5 F .3d 11 79 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Rit a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 55 1 U.S. 33 8,
35 1 (2 00 7) ).

In rev ie win g se nt en ces fo r reas on ab le ne ss , we typic al ly pe rfo rm two st ep s. Id

.
at 11 90

. Fi rs t, we “ ‘ens ur e th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al

erro r, su ch as fa i l in g to cal cu la te (o r im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ran ge ,
tre at in g th e Gui d e l in es as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s,

se le ct in g a se nt en ce ba se d on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s, or fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n
th e ch os en se nt en ce -- in cl ud in g an ex pl an at io n fo r an y de vi at io n fro m th e Gui de li ne s

ran ge .’ ” Id . (qu ot in g Gal l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 (20 07 )). 1

If we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t pr oc ed ur al ly err, we m us t co ns id er

t h e “‘s u b s t a n t i v e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e s e n t e n c e i mp o s e d u n d e r a n

The § 3553(a ) fa ctors include: ( 1) the na ture 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 for the se ntence imposed to refle ct the seriousness of the offe nse, to promote re spect for the law, a

nd to provide just punishment for the offe nse; (3) the need f

or the sente nce imposed to a ffor d adequa te deter renc e; (4) the need to protec t the public; (5) the ne ed to provide the defe ndant with educational or voca tional training or medica l car e; (6) the kinds of sentenc es ava ilable; (7) the Sente ncing Guidelines ra ng e; (8) the pertinent policy

statements of the Sente ncing Commi ssion; (9) the nee d to avoid unwanted sentenc ing dispa

rities; and (10) the need to pr ovide re stitut ion to victims . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
2ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ,’ ” ba se d on th e “ ‘tot al it y of th e ci rcu m st an ces .’ ” Id

.

(q uo ti ng Gall , 55 2 U.S. at 51 ). Thi s rev ie w is “ de fere nt ia l,” req ui rin g us to de te rm in e

“ whe th er th e se nt en ce i m po se d b y th e d is tri ct co ur t fa il s t o a ch ie ve th e pu rp os es of

se nt en ci ng as st at ed in se ct io n 35 53 (a).” Uni te d St at es v. Tall ey , 43 1 F.3 d 78 4, 78 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). “ [W] e wil l no t se co nd gu es s th e wei g ht (o r la ck th ereo f) th at th e [d is tri ct co ur t] acco rd ed to a gi ve n fact or
. . . as lo ng as th e se nt en ce ul t i m at el y
im po se d i s re as on ab le in li gh t of all th e ci rcu m st an ces pr es en te d.” Uni te d Stat es v.
Sn ip es , 61 1 F.3 d 85 5, 87 2 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ta ti on , al te rat io n an d em ph as is

om it te d) , cert . den ie d, 1 31 S. Ct. 2 96 2 (2 01 1)

. W e wil l “ va cat e th e se nt en ce i f, bu t

on ly i f , w e a r e le ft wit h th e de fin it e an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t

co m m it te d a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s by arri vi ng at

a se nt en ce th at li es ou ts id e th e ran ge of reas on ab le se nt en ces di ct at ed by th e fact s of
th e cas e.” See Uni te d St at es v. Irey, 61 2 F.3 d 11 60 , 11 90 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) , cert

. de ni ed , 13 1 S. Ct

. 18 13 (2 01 1)

. “ The pa rty ch al le ng in g th e

se nt en ce bear s th e bu rd en to sh ow it is un reas on ab le in li gh t of th e reco rd an d th e §
35 53 (a) fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Tom e, 61 1 F.3 d 13 71 , 13 78 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ), cert

. de ni ed , 13 1 S .Ct. 6 74 (20 10 ).
Alt ho ug h we do no t au to m at ic al ly pr es um e a se nt en ce wit hi n th e g u i d e l in e

ran ge is reas on ab l e , we or di na ril y ex pe ct su ch a se nt en ce to be reas on ab le

. Uni te d

3St at es v. Hun t, 52 6 F.3 d 73 9, 74 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ). A se nt en ce im po se d well be lo w
th e st at ut or y m ax im

um is an ot he r in di cat or of a reas on ab le se nt e n c e
. See Uni te d
St at es v. Go nz al ez, 5 50 F.3d 13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ).

W e ha ve pr ev io us ly h el d th at it was su bs ta nt iv el y un r e a s on ab le fo r a di st ric t

co ur t to im

po se a se nt en ce of pr ob at io n fo ll owi ng a ba nk frau d sc he m e th at in fli ct ed

a lo ss to ta li ng m or e th an $4 80 ,00 0. Uni t e d S t a t es v. Cri sp , 45 4 F.3 d 12 85 , 12 90 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ). W e sp eci fic al ly co nc lu de d th at th e se nt en ce of pr ob at io n di d no t

“ refl ect th e se rio us ne ss of th e cri m e, pr om ot e r e sp ect fo r th e la w,
. . . pr ov id e jus t

pu ni sh m en t fo r th e of

fen se , . . . [o r] affo rd ad eq ua te de te rren ce to cri m in al co nd uc t.”
Id . at 1 29 1. Here, Mo od y ’s 12 -m on th -an d- 1- da y se nt en ce, at th e lo w en d of he r gu id el in e

ran ge , was no t su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le in li gh t of (1 ) th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces
of th e of fen se , (2 ) th e ne ed fo r th e se nt en ce to refl ect th e se rio us ne ss of th e of fen se ,
pr om ot e res pe ct fo r th e la w, an d pr ov id e jus t pu ni sh m en t fo r th e of fen se , an d (3 ) th e

n e e d t o d e t e r cri m in al co nd uc t. 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). As th e di st ric t co ur t no te d,

Mo od y ’s cri m e in vo lv ed an on go in g se rie s of frau du le nt tra ns act io ns , r at he r th an a
si ng le is ol at ed in ci de nt

. It al so res ul te d in a lo ss of $1 90 ,39 9.4 2. Bas ed on so m ewh at
si m il ar fact s, we he ld in Cri sp th at a se nt en ce of pr ob at io n was no t reas on ab le

. Cri sp , 45 4 F.3 d at 12 90 -9 1. Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t wit h reg ard to th e § 35 53 (a)

4fact or s is en ti tl ed to de fere nc e an d, un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces , it di d no t m ak e a cl ear

erro r in jud gm en t in se nt en ci ng Mo od y to 12 m on th s and 1 day in pr is on
. Irey, 61 2
F.3 d a t 1 19 0.
AFFIRMED.

5