FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT OCT 30, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Robert L . Vining, Jr., United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of∗ Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 06- 1427 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 06-20082 -CR- KMM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us JUA N MO LI NASA VE DRA
D ef en da nt- A ppe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 30, 200 7) Befo re ANDERSON an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es , and VINING, District Judge. PE R CU RIA M:2

Juan Molin a Sa vedra appeals his sentence for r e-enter ing th e U nited States after being depo rted, in vio lation of 8 U.S .C. § 1326 (a). A ltho u g h t he advisory guid elines range in this case wa s 33 to 4 1 m onth s, the district court inst ead sentenced Save dr a to a

te rm of 120 m onths. In doi ng so, the co urt fi rs t pr ope rl y c al cu la te d th e applicable guid elines range, and then it opined that even an upper guid eline sentence of 41 m onths w oul d no t be appr opr ia te und er 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53 (a) c onsi de ri ng Save dr a' s hi sto ry

of r ep ea te dly

e nte ri ng the U nited St at es il le ga lly a nd c om m itt ing
cr im es w hil e he re . T he c ourt the re fo re w en t be y ond the gui de lin e range a nd determ i n ed that a 120-m onth sentence m ore adequately satisfied the § 355 3(a) fa ct or s. Savedra m akes four arg u m en ts on appeal. Fir st, he ar gues that the dis trict
co urt e rr ed

by f ai lin g to giv e ad equa te not ic e tha t i t i nte nde d to de pa rt upw ar d f ro m th e g ui de li ne s i n v io la ti on of h is du e pr oc es s rig ht s an d Fed . R . C rim. P. 32 (h ). As
an ini tia l m at te r, w e re vie w thi s m at te r fo r pla in er ro r be ca use the de fe ndant fa ile d to obj ec t t o a n all eg ed er

ro r at se nte nc ing on this gr ound "i n c le ar a nd s im ple langua ge tha t the tr ia l c ourt m ay

not m isu nde rs ta nd i t. " U nit ed S ta te s v. Ma sse y , 443 F
. 3d 8 14, 819 (11t h Cir. 2006 ). A fter c aref ul consid eration, w e find no reversible err or. Pu rs ua nt t o R

ule 32( h) , ase nte nc ing c ourt i s r eq ui red to g ive ade fe ndant
re as ona ble n ot ic e tha t i t i s c onsi de ri ng a de pa rt ur e fr om the appl ic ab le gui de lin e3

range on a gr ound not ide nti fi ed fo r de pa rt ur e ei the r in the P re se nte nc e In ve sti ga tio n Report or in a p arty 's p rehear ing su bm issio n. I t is und isput ed that the district court below did not g ive prior notice t h at it wa s contem plating an outsid e-the-guidelines sentence for S avedra. How ever, we have held that Rule 32(h) does no t apply wher e a court is going to im

pose an upward variance and give a sentence above the advisory g u i d e l i n e r a n g e p u r s u a n tt o i t s au t h o r i t y u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 ( a )
. Un i t e dS t a t e s v . I r i z a rry, 458 F. 3d 1 208, 1211 -1 2 (1 1th Ci r. ), pe tit ion fo r ce rt . f ile d, ( U
. S. O ct . 26, 200 6) (N o. 06-751 7). The R

ule 32(h) notice requirem ent pertains only to sentencing departures
m ad e p ur su an t t o t he gu id el in es , no t a v ari an ce m ad e u nd er § 35 53 (a). This court has considered, inter alia, two fa ctors in determ ining whether a de c i si on t o se nt e nc e a de f e nd a nt abo ve t he gu i de l i ne r a ng e i s a de partur e or a
va ri an ce : ( 1) w he the r the se nte nc ing co urt ci te d to a spe ci fi c de pa rt ur e pr ovi sio n in the guid elines, and (2) whether the court noted th e inadequacy of the guidelines
range . U nited St at es v. E ldi ck , 443 F
. 3d 7 83, 788 n. 2 ( 11th C ir
. 200 6)
. U sin g a sim ilar fr am ew ork inI ri zarr y , w e de te rm in e d

th at w he re the dis tr ic t c ourt ( 1) c or re ct ly
ca lc ula te d th e advis or

y gui de lin es r an ge , ( 2) c onsi de re d th e ad equa cy of the range in lig ht of the § 3553( a) fa ct or s, an d the ev ide nc e at se nte nc ing , a nd ( 3) de ci de d th at the guid elines range did not adequately address the defendant's future r isk to th e public,4

the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d us ed ava ri an ce , not

agui de lin es de pa rt

ur e. I ri zarr

y , 458 F
. 3d at 121 1- 12. Inthi s c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c om m it pla in e rr or

by f ai lin g to giv e Save dr a Ru le 32( h) not ic e bec au se it did not ap ply a guid el ine s depart ur e; ra the r, it
use d a n upw ar d va ri an ce to se nte nc e him ab ove the gui de lin es range . N ot o nly did the c ourt f

ir st p ro pe rl y

c al cu la te the de fe ndant' s gu ide lin es r an ge , but a t se nte nc ing the court did no t cite to a specific departure provisi on. Moreover, the court opined several tim es that a guidelines-range sentence w ould not adequately ad dress the § 3553 (a ) fa ct or s. A lth oughthe gov er nm en t sta te d that an upw ar d de pa rt ur e co uld be
use d, the dis tr ic t c ourt r ef er re d on ly to the § 3553( a) f

ac tor s a nd i ts c onsi de ra tio n of the na tur e an d c ir cu m stanc es of th e of fe nse a s w el l a s th e de fe ndant' s hi sto ry a nd ch ar ac te ri sti cs . T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt us ed a n upw ar d va ri an ce , not a de pa rt ur e, a nd therefore did no t need to provid e notice to Savedra. Se co nd, S av edra

a sse rt s th at

the dis tr ic t cour

t er re d by fa ili ng to in vit e him to allocute before it announced its sentence, in v i o l ation of Fed. R . C rim . P
. 32(i)(4)(A )(ii). H e also ar g u es that this cou rt should not review this issue und er
m er el y apla in e rr or

standard be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ai le d to f ull y c om ply w iththe elicitation r

ule announ ced in U nited S tates v. Jones, 899 F. 2d 10 97, 1103 (11t h Cir.5

1990 ), ove rr

ule d inpa rt

on o the r gr ound s by U nit ed St at es v. Mor ri ll, 984 F. 2d 1 136 (11th Cir. 1993)(en banc). T ur nin g in iti al ly

to Save dr a' s c ont en tio n th at the dis tr ic t c ourt vi ola te d ou r ru le in Jon es, w e conclude that it did n ot. T he district co u rt g av e t he defendant an oppo rt uni ty to obj ec t t o it s f

ind ing s of f ac t and the m an ne r in w hic h it pr onou nc ed

it s sentence. Although th e c o u rt d i d not sp ecifica lly provide an opp ortunityto object al so t o it s le ga l c onc lus ion s, a s w e sugg es te d inJon es , it ne vert he le ss a ff

or de d th e de fe ndant a

suf fi ci en t c ha nc e to ra ise an d ar tic ula te an y obj ec tio n he m ay ha ve ha d,
w hic h is suf

fi ci en t t o c om

ply w iththe Jone s ru le
. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. W ils on, 983 F. 2d 22 1, 22 5- 26 (11 th C ir
. 199 3)
. I n a ny e ve nt, S av edra

too k th at opp ortun ity

to obj ec t on ly

to the re as ona

ble ne ss of the se nte nc e, not to the ti m ing of his a llo cu tio n. Consequent ly , he wa ived his rig h t to allocutio n by failing to raise it as a Jones obj ec tio n, a nd w e w ill re m an d fo r re se nte nc ing onl y if m an if es t i nj ust ic e w oul d r es ult otherwise. U nited States v. Rodrigu ez -V alesquez, 132 F.3d 698 , 700 (11th Cir. 1998 ). B ec au se the ca se la w in this c ir cu it equa te s m an if es t i nj ust ic e w iththe pla in
error standard of review , United States v. Quintana, 300 F. 3d 1227 , 123 2 (11th Cir. 2002 ), we reviewthis iss ue for plain err or. W ith respect to the district court's m anner in which it pronounced its sentence,
w e co nc lude th at no pla in e rr or oc cu rr ed
. R

ule 32( i) (4 )( A )( ii) pla inl y r equir es a6

se nte nc ing c ourt t o pe rm it a de fe nda nt t o m ak e a sta te m en t and p re se nt any m iti ga tin g inf orm at ionbe fo re ha ndi ng d own a se nte nc e. T his r eq uir em en t pr ovi de s th e defendant with an opportun ity to personally plead for leniency and "to have that plea
co nsi de re d by

the c ourt i n de te rm ini ng the appr opr ia te sent en ce. " U nit ed S ta te s v. Ge rrow , 232 F. 3d 83 1, 833 (11th Cir. 2000). S avedra' s arg u m en t is that the court pronou nced its sentence before allowing him to allocute. H owever , a car eful review of the rec ord shows that the court m erely opin ed that a 120-m onth sentence satisfied the § 355 3(a) f

actors before i t invit ed Savedra to allocute. Upon th e court's inv ita tio n, S av edra

apol ogi ze d f

or his ac tio ns and pr om ise d he wo uld ne ve r re tur

n to this coun try . The court then form ally im posed its sentence. Although th e court m ay ha ve e xpr es se d it s op ini on a bout S av edra ' s se nt en ce befo re the a llo cu tio n, it nevertheless waited until after the defendant spoke to form ally sentence him
. Savedra thu s ha d th e tim el y

opp ortun ity

to ple ad to the c ourt f

or le nie nc y be fo re se nte nc ing , so n o pl ai n e rr or

oc cu rr ed
. Third, Savedra

asserts er

ror beca use the district cour t fa i l ed to consid er a gui de lin es upw ar d de pa rt ur e be fo re im

posi ng an up w ar d vari an ce . Si nc e he m ad e no obj ec tio n a t the se nte nc ing ba se d onthi s ob j ec tion, w e re vie w thi s is sue f or pla in
erro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Rod rig ue z, 39 8 F .3d 12 91 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ).7

W e ha ve a lr ea dy

c onc lud ed

tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y c al cu la te d th e d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e b e f o r e i te l e c t e dt o u s e a n up w a r dv a r i a n c e . No t ab l y, Savedra po i n ts to no lawrequiring a sentencing court to first consi der a guidelines de pa rt ur e be fo re loo kin g to the § 35 53( a) f ac tor s to va ry

ase nte nc e upw ar d. W e fi nd
no plain e rr or

i n t he d i str i c tc ou rt ' s e l e c t i onn ot t o c on si de r

ag ui de l i ne s up w a rd de pa rt ur e be fo re im

posi ng an upw ar d va ri an ce . A s f or S av edra ' s c ont en tio n th at the district court did n ot consu lt the guid elines policy statem ents bef ore vary ing up ward as required by

§ 3553 (a)( 5), we d i s ag re e. In im posin g the sentence, the c ourt
ex pli ci tly sta te d that it ha d c onsi de re d e ac h of the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s, w hic h in cl ude the c onsi de ra tio n of

pe rt ine nt p oli cy

sta te m en ts. L as tly , S av edra

a sse rt s that his 120- m onth sent en ce w as unr ea sona ble be ca use it crea tes a risk of sentencing disparity and is unn ecessar ily severe. H e notes that that the governm ent presented no aggravating fac tors against him , and he contend s that his case did not invol ve extraordinary circum stances warranting his lon g sentence. We r e v i e w p o s t - B o o k e r

s e n t e n c e s f

o r r e a s o n ab l e n e s s . Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Ta l l e y, 431 F.3d 784 , 785 (11th Cir. 2005). The Suprem e Court's dec ision in United States
v. Bo oke r, 543 U.S. 2 20 , 261 , 125 S
. Ct
. 738 , 765 -6 6 ( 2005 ), m an da te d th at c ourts
rev ie w sen te nc es forreas on ab le ne ss in li gh t o f th e fact or s se t fo rth in § 3 55 3( a). A pa rty ch al le ngi ng a

se nte nc e be ar s th e bur de n of e sta bli shi ng u nr ea sona

ble ne ss i n8

li gh t o f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a ct or s an d t he reco rdbe lo w. Talle y , 43 1 F .3d at 7 88 . A
rem an d fo r resentencing is warranted "if we are left w ith the definite and firm
co nvi ct iontha t the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed ac le ar er ro r of j udgm en t in w ei ghi ng the § 35 53(a) fa ct or s by

a rr ivi ng a t a

se nte nc e tha t l ie s ou tsi de the r an ge of r ea sona ble
se nte nc es dic ta te d by

the f act s of the c as e. " U nit ed S ta te s v. W ill ia m s, 456 F
. 3d 1353 , 1363 (11th Cir. 2006). The def endant's sentence, alt h o u g h signi ficantly higher than the gu idelines
m ax im um , w as still te n y ears be lowthe sta tut or y m ax im um of tw en ty y ears ' im prisonm ent. 8 U .S .C. § 1326 (b)(2). In sentencing the defendant, the court stated
a mp l e r e a s o n i n g f

o r i t s d e c i s i o n t o v a ry up w a r df r o m t h e g u i d e l i n e s ma x i mu m. Specifica lly , the court reca lled how Savedra had repeate dly been deported or returned to Mexico for illegal entry , and that each tim e he had m anaged to enter this count ry he comm i tted serious crim es. Further, the court stated that a high-end gu idelines range sentence of 41 m onth s would not adequately deter Savedra from future cr im inal
co nduc t or ref

le ct his c ha ra ct er ist ic s un de r § 35 53( a) , r ec ount ing his num er ous
arre sts, prison sentences, and re- entries back into the coun try . Thus, the district court
ex pli ci tly c onsu lte d se ve ra l of

the § 3553 (a ) fa ct or s a nd p ro vid ed a m ple r ea soni ng f

or its de ci sio n to va ry

upw ar d f ro m the gui de lin es . O ur

r ev ie w f or r eas on ab le ne ss i s defere ntial and the particular we ight accorded to any of the § 3553 (a) factors is lef t9

to the dis tr ic t cour

t' s sound dis cr et ion
. U nit ed S ta te s v. A m ed eo , 487 F
. 3d 8 23, 832
- 33 ( 11th C ir
. 200 7)
. A ft er c ar ef ull y c onsi de ri ng S av edra ' s a rg um en t, we are not pe r su a de d t ha th i s se nt e nc e w a s un r e a so na bl e o r t ha tt he d i str i c tc ou rtc om m itted cl ear er ro r of j udgm en t in w ei ghi ng the § 3553 (a ) fa ct or s inli ght of the f ac ts o f thi s
c a s e . T h e r e f

o r e , S a v e d r a ' s s e n t e n c e w a s r e a s o n ab l e , a n dw e a f f i rm. AF FIRMED