FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 19, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 13 89 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 1- cr-6 00 79 -WJZ-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us LARRY HAYNES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen 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 urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 19 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Larry Hayne s ap pe al s h is 41 -m on th to ta l s en te nc e o f im pr is on m en t,im

po se d a fte r he pl ead edgu il ty to i ll eg al reen try of a d ep orte d a li en , invi ol at io n of 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a), (b )(2 ), an d i m pe rs on at in g acit iz enof t he Uni te d S ta te s, i n vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 11 . Afte r a rev ie w of t he reco rd , we affi rm . Hayne s, a c it iz enof J am ai ca, h adbe ende po rte d a fte r hi s co nv ic ti on for a drug -rel at edoff

en se , lat er re en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t p erm is si on , andwas arre st edaft er h e u se d afal se bi rth cert ifi cat e to ob ta in anAriz on a driv er’s l ic en se un de r anass um ednam e. Whe n h e was arre st ed , he p res en te d t hi s d riv er’s l ic en se an d fa ls el y

cla im edto be a U.S. cit iz en . The di stric t co urt d et erm in edth e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge to be 41 to 51 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Hayne s’s cr im in al hi st ory in cl ud eda pr io r drug co nv ic ti on an d a ls o c it edhi s p rev io us de po rta ti on , ot he r dr ug -rel at edch arg es , pr es en ti ng fal se id en ti fic at io n, an d afir earm s ch arg e. Hayne s u rg edth e co urt t o co ns id er h is di ffi cu ltch il dh oo d i n J am ai ca, the th reat s h e fac edin Jamaica b as ed on hi s fa th er’s p ol it ic al act iv it ie s, an d h is co op erat io n wi th au th or it ie s. Th e go ve rn m en t n ot edth atHayne s h adm ul ti pl e ch il dr enby num ero us wom en , lac ke d st eady em pl oym en t, an d h addi st rib ut eddru gs du rin g apre vi ou s s ta y in th e Uni te d St at es . The d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredHayne s’s re qu es t t o s en te nc e h im be lo w th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge an d t he go ve rn m en t’s ar gu m en t t ha t Haynes was ali ke ly reci di vi stbe fo re d en y in g Haynes ’s reque stfora do wnwar d v ari an ce. Aft er 2li st en in g t o t he pa rti es ’ arg um en ts an d c on si de rin g t he st atut ory fact or s, t he co urt st at edth atitfou ndno reas on to de pa rt o r va ry fro m a gu id el in e se nt en ce an d t hu s se nt en cedHayne s t o 4 1 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. 1 On ap pe al , Hayne s ar gu es th atth e co urt fa il edto ex pl ai n t he sen te nc e ad equa te ly andfai le d t o g iv e p ro pe r wei gh t t o h is co op erat io n wi th au th or it ie s. W e rev ie w th e fi na l s en te nc e im po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt fo r reas on ab le ne ss . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ag ba i , 49 7 F .3d12 26 , 12 29 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). The reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e is rev ie wedun de r a d efer en ti al ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard . Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1 (2 00 7) . W e fi rs t l oo k to whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d p ro cedur al erro r, an d t he n we l oo k t o whe th er the sen te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le ba se d o n the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Id

. at51 . The p art y

ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atitwas u nr eas on ab le . Uni te d Sta tes v. To me , 61 1 F .3d13 71 , 13 78 (1 1t h C ir.) , cer t. d

en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 6 74 (20 10 ). Pro cedur al un reas on ab le ne ss in cl ud es “ fai li ng to cal cu la te (orim pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g t he Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to

Hay nes’s sentenc e consisted of 41 months for his illega l ree ntry count and 36 months for 1 impersonating a U.S. citizen, to run concur rently . The statutory maxi mum for the illega l ree ntry was 20 year s’ imprisonment; for impersonating a U.S. citizen, the statutory maxi mum sentenc e was 3 year s. See8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2); 18 U.S.C. § 911. 3co ns id er the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, s el ect in g asen te nc e b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fact s, o r fai li ng to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e . . . .” Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at 51 . The § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s i nc lu de th e n eedto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he of fen se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , det er cri m in al co nduc t, an d p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m th e d efen da nt ’s futur e cri m in al co nduc t. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). The d is tri ctco urt m us t al so co ns id er the na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se , th e h is to ry

an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e de fen da nt , th e k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e, th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , th e pe rti ne ntpo li cy

st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si on , th e n eedto av oi d un warra nt edsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s, an d t he ne edto pro vi de res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (3 )-(7 ). The co urt n eedno t “ st at e o n t he reco rdth atitha s ex pl ic it ly con si de redeach of t he sec ti on 35 53 (a) fa ct or s o r [] dis cu ss each of t he se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 86 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Rath er, i t i s s uf fic ie ntforth e d is tri ctco urt t o h av e co ns id eredth e d efen da nt ’s arg um en ts an d t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s i n l ig htof a ll th e fact s an d c irc um st an ces , as i nd ic at edin th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng reco rd . Se e id . A sen te nc e is subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le if, b as edon th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d a“ cl ear e rro r of

jud gm en t” in weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) s en te nc in g fa ct or s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 411 90 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) , cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 81 3 (2 01 1) . The d is tri ctco urt m us t i m po se a se nt en ce “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er tha n ne ces sa ry , to co m

pl y with t he pu rp os es ” li st edin § 3 55 3( a). 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). A cle ar erro r of

jud gm en t o ccu rs when th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on is ou ts id e o f th e

“ ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Id . W it hi n t ha t ran ge , ho wev er, the “ weig htto be acco rd edan y gi ve n § 35 53 (a) fa ct oris a m at te r co m m it te d t o t he so un d d is cret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 52 6 F .3d13 12 , 13 22 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Alth ou gh we do no t pr es um e th ata se nt en ce fa ll in g wi th in th e ap pl ic ab le Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ran ge is reas on ab le , we do ord in ari ly exp ectsu cha se nt en ce t o b e rea so nabl e. Uni te d St at es v. Hun t , 52 6 F .3d73 9, 7 46 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Here, we co nc lu de th atHayne s’s s en te nc e was bo th pro cedur al ly and subs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le . The co urt re qu es te d t es ti m on y an d a rg um en t re la ti ng to th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, s ta te d o n t he reco rdth atitco ns id eredth e st atut ory fact or s as well as Ha yne s’s ar gu m en ts , andsubs eque nt ly stat edin op enco urt t ha t i t fo un d n o reas onto va ry

fro m th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge . The s en te nc e was als o subs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . The 4 1- m on th sen te nc e was at t he lo w endof t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge an d wel l be lo w th e st atut ory

m ax im um sen te nc e o f 20 y ears ’ im pr is on m en t. Se e 8 U.S.C. 5§ 1 32 6( b) (2 ). W e g en eral ly leav e th e wei gh in g o f th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s t o t he

di st ric t co urt, an d wi ll on ly rever se if t he co urt co m m it s a c le ar erro r of

jud gm en t. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3dat 1 19 0. Haynes ha s fa il edto sh ow t ha t t he sen te nc e im po se d was ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es ba se d o n t he fact s o f th is cas e o r th atth e co urt fa il edto co ns id er h is co op erat io n a s a f act or . AFFIRMED.

6