### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T January 19, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12929 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 6 0 4 - CR- T- 2 3 M SS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D A G O B E R T O B A E Z - B E R R I O S , a .k .a . D ig o b e r to B a e z - B a rr io s , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 19, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A pp el l antD agob ert o B ae z- B erri os appeal s hi s 46-m on th sent ence , i m po se d2

af t erhe w as conv i ct ed of i l l egal l y r e- ent er i ng the U ni t ed S t at es af t erhe had c o m m i tt e d a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

8 U. S . C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) , ( b ) ( 2 ) . He arg u es th ath i s sen t en ce i s u n reaso n ab l e, cl ai m i n g th ati to v erst at es th e seri o u sn ess of hi s off ense and d oes notadequat el y t ake i nt o acc ou ntthe 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors bey on d the G ui del i nes r ange, and h i s c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory o v errep resen t s h i s cri m i n al h i st o ry. T i t l e 18 U . S . C . § 3 74 2(a) al l ow s adefe nd antt o app ea l an ot herw i se fi nal se nt ence on l y i f i tw as i m po se d i n v i ol at i on of the l aw , re sul t ed fr om an i ncorrec t appl i ca t i on of the G ui del i nes, exce eded the appl i cabl e G ui del i ne ra ng e, or w as “p la in ly u n r e a s o n ab le ” a n d im p o s e d f o ra n o f f e n s e f o rw h ic h th e r e is n o ap p lic ab le G u id e lin e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. E rv es , 8 8 0 F .2 d 3 7 6 , 3 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) . A s e n te n c e th a t f

a lls w ith in th e ap p lic ab le G u id e lin e r a n g e a n d is n o t a lle g e d to b e in vi ol a t i on of

the l a w ori m pos e d a s a r e s ul tof a n i nc orr e c tappl i c a t i on of the G u id e lin e s is n o t ap p e a lab le . U n ite d S ta te s v . A la m in , 8 9 5 F .2 d 1 3 3 5 , 1 3 3 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1990) . C ha l l e nge s t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e f us a l t o de pa r tdow nw a r d f r om the G u id e lin e r a n g e a r e g e n e r a lly n o t ap p e a lab le u n le s s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t b e lie v e d it la c k e d th e a u th o r ity to d o s o . U n ite d S ta te s v . Fo s s e tt , 88 1 F . 2d 97 6 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ). A ft er U

ni t ed Stat es v. B oo ke r , 5 4 3 U. S. 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S. Ct . 7 3 8 , 7 6 4 - 6 6 , 1 6 0 L. E d . 2 d 6 2 1 (2 0 0 5 ), w e st i l l can n o trev i ew a d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d eci si o n n o tt o ap p l y aWen o teth at t h eg o v e r nment a rgu e s th at w ed o n o t h av eth ea uth o rit y toh e ar B a e z- 1 Berrios’s re asonableness challeng e under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) be causethe sentenc e is within the Guide lin e s rang e . H ow e ver, B oo ker, 54 3 U .S. at __ , 1 25 S. Ct . at 76 4- 66 , dire c ts a pp e llate c ourt s toreview s e ntenc e s f or re a so na blene ss in li ght o f t

he§ 3 55 3( a) s e ntenc ingfac tor s, whether or not the district court sentence d within the applicable Guideline ra ng e, so wedo have authority to hear Baez-Berrios’s re asonableness claim. United States v. Martinez , No. 05-12706 (11th Cir. J an. 9, 2006). 3 dow nw a r d de pa r tur e , e xc e ptt o the e xt e ntnot e d i n Fo s s e tt . U ni t ed Stat es v. W i ni nge ar , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A ft erthe di stri ctcourtac cura t el y c al cul at es the G ui del i nes r ange, i t“ m ay i m p o se a m o re sev ere o r m o re l en i en tsen t en ce” th atw e rev i ew fo r reaso n ab l en ess. U n i t ed S ta t es v. C ra w

f o rd , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . S u c h r e v ie w is d e f e r e n tia l. U

ni t ed Stat es v. T

al l ey , N o. 05- 11353, ___F . 3d ___ ( 11th C i r . D e c . 2, 2005) . “ [ T ] he pa r ty w ho c ha l l e nge s the s e nt e nc e be a r s the bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng th a t th e s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le in th e lig h t o f b o th [ th e ] r e c o r d a n d th e f a c to r s in § 3 55 3(a) . ” I

d. 1 I n f a s hi oni ng a r e a s ona bl e s e nt e nc e , a di s tr i c tc our ts houl d be gui de d by the f a c to r s in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . W i ni nge ar , 422 F . 3d a t1246. D i s tr i c tc our t s do n o t n e e d to e s tab lis h th e r e a s o n ab le n e s s o f th e s e n te n c e s th e y im p o s e b y e x p lic itly c ons i de r i ng e ve ry f

a c t orf r om §3553( a ) on the r e c or d; s om e i ndi c a t i on i n the r e c o r d th a t th e c o u r t a d e q u a te ly a n d p r o p e r ly c o n s id e r e d ap p r o p r ia te f a c to r s in co n j u n ct i o n w i th th e sen t en ce w i l l b e su ffi ci en tw h en th e d i stri ctco u rti m p o ses a s e n te n c e w ith in th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e . U n ite d S ta te s v . Sc o tt , 426 F . 3d 1324, 13294

(11t h C i r. 20 05 ). T o the ext entthe B ae z- B erri os i s a rgui ng thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otdepart d o w n w a r d o n h is c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry o rth e ap p lic ab le G u id e lin e r a n g e , th is ty pe of di s c r e t i ona ry r e f

us a l t o de pa r tdow nw a r d f r om the appl i c abl e G ui de l i ne ra ng e c anno tbe re vi ew ed by us, even aft er B oo ke r . W i ni nge ar , 422 F . 3d a t1245. F ur the r m or e , B a e z - B e rr i os m a de no obj e c t i ons t o the G ui de l i ne s ’ c a l c ul a t i on a nd c o n c e d e d th a t h is c r im in a l h is to ry w a s le g a lly ap p r o p r ia te . B a e z - B e rr i os ’ s a r gum e nt s tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s ona bl e be c a us e the d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ap p r o p r ia te ly c o n s id e rth e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s is w ith o u t m e r it. T he re cord dem on stra t es thatthe di stri ctcourtadequat el y a nd prop er l y c on si dere d the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors a nd the advi sory G ui del i nes r ange. In i m po si ng the se nt ence atthe l ow end o f the gu i del i ne ra ng e, the di stri ctcourtexpl i ci t l y a ckno w l edged thatthe se nt ence prop er l y c on si dere d b oth the po l i ci es of the advi sory G ui del i nes and § 35 53 (a ). T he di stri ctcourtal so consi dere d the fa ct s a s c on t ai ned i n the P S I, so i ti m pl i ci t l y c on si dere d the nature a nd ci rc um st ance s of the offens e a nd hi st ory a n d c h a r a c te r is tic s o f

th e d e f e n d a n t. See 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (1). T he di stri ctcourt di d n otneed t o st at e on t he re cord i t s e xp l i ci tconsi dera t i on of every § 35 53 (a ) f a c to r . Sc o tt , 4 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 9 . F u r th e r m o r e , th e G u id e lin e r a n g e ta k e s in to a c c o u n t m a n y o f

th e f a c to r s e m b o d ie d in § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . See 2 8 U. S . C . § 9 9 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A)5

( s t a t i ng tha tone r ol e of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on i s t o “ a s s ur e the m e e tin g o f

th e p u rp o s e s o f

s e n te n c in g a s s e t f

o r th in ” § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ) . B a e z - B e rr i os ’ s s e nt e nc e i s a l s o a tthe l ow e nd of the G ui de l i ne r a nge a nd s ig n if ic a n tly lo w e rth a n th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m o f 2 0 y e a r s . See W

i ni nge ar , 422 F . 3d a t1246 ( c om pa r i ng, a s one i ndi c a t i on of r e a s ona bl e ne s s , the a c tua l pr i s on t e r m i m p o s e d a g a i n s tth e s t a tu t o ry m a x i m u m ) . B a s e d o n th e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , we c o n c l u d e th a tth e s e n t e n c e i s n o tu n r e a s o n ab l e . F o rth e a b o v e - s t a t e d r e a s o n s , we af fi rm B ae z- B erri os’ s s ent ence . AF F I RME D.