FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 6, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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 0- 14 65 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 00 57 -J SM- TBM-3

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 TYRONE W ILLIAMS, J R., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 6, 2 01 1) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Ty ro ne W il li am s, J r. ap pe al s h is 37 -m on th sen te nc e, im po se d a fte r he pl ed gu il ty to 1 co un t o f di st rib ut io n o f co cai ne ba se , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . W e d ire ct edW il li am s i n a n Ander s ord er t o b rie f us on whethe r th e d is tri ct co urt co m

m it te d p la in erro r whe n i t fa il edto no ti fy th e p art ie s b efo re the se nt en ci ng he ari ng of i ts in te nt io n t o i m po se a two -le ve l upwa rdva rianc e o r de pa rtu re. W il li am s co nc ed es th atth e d is tri ctco urt i m po se d a n upwardva ria nc e, as op po se d t o ade pa rtu re, an d a s a r es ul t, h e was no t en ti tl edto no ti ce. 1 Howev er, Will ia m s ar gu es th athi s 3 7- m on thsen te nc e was subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se th e le ng th of t he sen te nc e was ex ces si ve co ns id eri ng hi s m it ig at io n fa ct or s. He as se rts th atan18 -m on th sen te nc e was reas on ab le to refl ect th e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se an d t he pu rp os es of s en te nc in g. Although Rule 32( h) re quires that par ties are g iven re asonable notice of the 1 contemplated de cision to depart f rom the sentenc ing guidelines, and a n opportunity

to comment on the depa

rture, the notice r equire ment under Rule 32( h) does not apply to a variance from the advisory sentenc ing guidelines rang e, only to a departure . See I

rizarry v. United States , 553 U.S. 708, 714, 128 S.Ct . 2198, 2202, 171 L .Ed.2d 28 (2008). In United States v. Izziary , which the Supre me Court aff irmed, this Court determined that a variance and not a departure was imposed whe n the district court c alculate d the guideline rang e, conside red the adequa cy of the guideline ra

ng e in light of

the § 3553(a ) fa ctors and the evidenc e, and the n decide d to sentence the def endant outside the guideline ra ng e bec ause the applicable rang e did not adequa tely addre ss the defe ndant’s risk to the public under § 3553(a) (2)( C). United States v. Irizzary , 458 F.3d 1208, 1211- 12 (11th Cir. 2006), aff’d, 553 U.S. 708 (2008). 2A. The s ente nce c al cul at io n

Incal cu la ti ng W il li am s’ sen te nc e, th e d is tri ctco urt s tarte d wi th a to ta l of fen se lev el of 1 2 andcri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of VI, yield in g agu id el in e im pr is on m en t ra ng e o f 30 to 37 m on th s. Nex t, the co urt “ va rie d d own ward ” to a to ta l o ffen se lev el of 1 0 t o e qu at e cra ckco cai ne to po wde r co cai ne , at the de fen da nt ’s reque st , y ie ld in g agu id el in e ran ge of 2 4 t o 3 0 m on th s. Fi na ll y , th e co urt “ va rie d upwa rd ” two lev el s t o o ffen se lev el 12 be cau se of Wil li am s’s cri m in al hi st ory

sco re o f 23 , whi chreturne d the fin al gu id el in e ran ge ba ckto 30 to 37 m on th s. Th e p art ie s ag ree t ha t the se were v ari an ces , no t d ep artur es un de r th e Gui de li ne s. Fu rth erm or e, th e co urt’s ac tu al gu id el in e cal cu la ti on rem ai ne d t he sa m e as th e PSI, d es pi te th e upwardan d d own wardvaria nc es . Inde te rm in in g t he sen te nc e to be im po se d, § 35 53 (a) re qu ire s the di st ric t co urt t o c on si de r th e fo ll owi ng fact or s: (1) th e n atur e an d c irc um st an ces of t he of fen se an dth e h is to ryan d c ha ra ct er is ti cs of th e d ef en da nt ; (2 ) th e n eedforth e se nt en ce i m

po se d t o re fle ctth e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se , to pro m ot e res pe ctfor th e la w, andto pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se ; (3 ) th e n eedfor de te rren ce; (4) th e n eed

“to pr ot ect

th e p ub li c fr om f

ur th er cri mes of th e de fe nd an t ;” (5) th e n eedto pro vi de th e d efen da ntwith e du cat io na l o r vo cat io na l tra in in g o r m ed ic al care ; (6 ) th e k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e; (7) th e se nt en ci ng 3gu id el in es ran ge ; (8 ) pe rti ne ntpo li cy st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ; (9 ) th e n eedto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is parit ie s; an d (1 0) th e n eedto pr ov id e res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) (e m ph as is ad de d) ; Ir iz

za ry , 45 8 F.3 d a t 1 21 2 n .2. Here , th e v ari an ce was jus ti fie d o n t he ba si s o f th e d is tri ct co urt’s co ns id erat io n o f th e fi rs t fa ct or , th e d efen da nt ’s cri m in al hi st ory , and fo urth fact or , th e n eedto pro te ctth e p ub li c fro m furth er cr im es . W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e und er a d efer en ti al ab us e o f di sc ret io n s tand ardof r ev ie w. Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 5 91 , 16 9 L.Ed .2d44 5 (2 00 7) . W e m ay “ se t as id e a s en te nc e o nl y if we de te rm in e, aft er g iv in g aful l m eas ur e o f de fere nc e to th e se nt en ci ng jud ge , th at th e se nt en ce i m

po se d t ru ly is u nr eas on ab le .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (enba nc ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 81 3 (2 01 1) . Inrev ie win g t he reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e, we m us t fi rs t en su re tha t the se nt en ce was pro cedur al ly reaso nabl e, m ean in g t ha t the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly cal cu la te d t he gu id el in e ran ge , tre at edth e g ui de li ne s as advi so ry , con si de redth e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, d idno t s el ecta se nt en ce b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, an d ad equa te ly exp la in edth e ch os ensen te nc e. Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S .Ct. at59 7. Onc e we d et erm in e a s en te nc e is pro cedur al ly reaso nabl e, we m us t ex am in e

4whe th er the sen te nc e, in cl ud in g t he ex te ntof any vari an ce, was subs tant iv el y

reas on ab le un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Id . Here, we fi ndth atth e se nt en ce was bo th pro cedur al ly sou ndan d subs tant iv el y

reas on ab le . As th e d is tri ctco urt ex pl ai ne d, Will ia m s’s ex te ns iv e cri m in al hi st ory , th e n eedto de te r hi m fro m futur e cri m es , andth e n eedto pro te ct th e p ub li c jus ti fie d t he up wardva ria nc e b as edon th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. AFFIRMED.

5