[DO NOT PUBLISH]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,

v ersus ALLEN RAMDATT , a . k

. a . Kenneth M o lloy, 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 32 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 distri ct 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 arg ument 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).” Ram datt 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 33 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 th at the district court’s decision was consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines’ preference for consecutive terms of imprisonment for sentences imposed at differe nt 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 le ngthy 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 mo re 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