FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 21, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 63 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 05 56 -SDM- AEP-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us ROGELIO CALDERON-GAMEZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 21 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ro ge li o C al de ro n- Gam ez ap pe al s h is 27 -m on thsen te nc e im po se d a fte r he pl ead edgu il ty to i ll eg al ly reent eri ng th e Uni te d S ta te s fo ll owi ng hi s d ep orta ti on in vi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . § 1 32 6( a) an d (b )(1 ). Cal de ro n- Gam ez co nt en ds th athi s se nt en ce i s p ro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto ad equa te ly exp la in it s s en te nc e an d s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e se nt en ce i s g reat er tha n n eces sa ry to ach ie ve th e p ur

po se s o f se nt en ci ng . I. Cal de ro n- Gam ez, a M ex ic ancit iz en , ent eredth e Uni te d S ta te s i n 1 98 9 a t the ag e o f 15 , andhe was a ss ig ne d a n Al ie n R eg is tra ti onNum be r. In 1 99 9, Ca ld ero n- 1 Gam ez was co nv ic te d o f hi s fi rs t fe lo ny—po ss es si on of c oc ai ne —an d was se nt en cedto th ree years p ro ba ti on . He fail edto fol lo w th e te rm s o f hi s p ro ba ti on an d was de po rte d t o M ex ic o i n 2 00 1. He the reaf te r il le ga ll y

reen te redth e Uni te d St at es , andin 20 05 he was a rres te d fo r po ss es si onof m etha m ph et am in e an d t he un au th or iz edpo ss es si on of adri ve r’s li cen se . He was co nv ic te d o f th os e ch arg es an d s en te nc edto 36 6 d ay s i n p ris on . In 2 00 6, af te r hi s re le as e, he was s en te nc edto 21 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t, fo ll owe d b y

36 m ot hs of s up erv is edrel eas e, fo r hi s

Although the Bur eau of

Immigration and Customs Enforc ement re cords indicate that 1 Calderon- Gamez first ente red the United States in 1989, he asse rts that he ca me to the United States in 1987 at ag e 13. That inconsistency , howeve r, has no be aringon this case. 2il le ga l re en try int o t he Uni te d S ta te s af te r be in g d ep orte d. Aft er s erv in g t ha t p ris on se nt en ce, Ca ld ero n- Gam ez was de po rte d— fo r a s eco ndti m e—t o M ex ic o. Cal de ro n- Gam ez o nc e ag ai n i ll eg al ly reent eredth e Uni te d S ta te s, an d i n 20 09 he was arres te d fo r un la wfu ll y carryin g aweap on—a s wit chbl ad e. As a res ul t, the supe rv is edrel eas e fro m hi s p rev io us co nv ic ti onwas re vo ke d a ndhe was se nt en cedto 6 m on th s i m pr is on m en t. He the n p le ad edgu il ty to an d was co nv ic te d of il le ga l re en try int o t he Uni te d S ta te s, wh ic h l edto th is ap pe al . Bas edon Cal de ro n- Gam ez’s o ffen se , cri m in al hi st ory , andacce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y , hi s re co m

m en de d g ui de li ne s ra ng e was 21 to 27 m on th s im pr is on m en t. U.S.S.G. Ch . 5 Pt . A (sen te nc in g t ab le ). He was s ub ject t o a st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e o f 12 0 m on th s i m pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co urt, af te r st at in g t ha t i t h adco ns id eredth e “po li ci es an d g ui de li ne s o f th e Uni te d S ta te s Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ,” an d t he “ advi so ry gu id el in e se nt en ce,” a nd“ th e fac to rs arra y edat 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a),” an d t ha t Ca ld ero n- Gam ez i s a “ pe rs is te ntan d . . . act iv el y de fia ntoff

en de r,” fo un d t ha t a 2 7- m on thsen te nc e atth e to p o f th e gu id el in es ran ge was “ su ffi ci en t b utno t g reat er tha n n eces sa ry ” to co m pl y with t he pu rp os es setforth in § 3 55 3( a). II.

3“ W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n u si ng a

two -s te p p ro ces s.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Tom e, 61 1 F .3d13 71 , 13 78 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). 2 Fi rs t, we l oo k a t “ whe th er the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d a ny sig ni fic an t p ro cedur al erro r,” an d s eco ndwe lo okat “ whe th er the sen te nc e is subs ta nt 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 . “ The pa rty chal le ng in g t he sen te nc e be ars th e b ur de n t o s ho w itis un reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e rec or d andth e [1 8 U.S.C.] § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s.” Id . A. To d et erm in e if

a se nt en ce i s p ro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le , we con si de r is su es su chas wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y cal cu la te d t he gu id el in es ran ge , tre at edth e g ui de li ne s as m an da to ry in st eadof a dv is ory , fai le d t o c on si de r th e ap pr op ria te st atut ory

fact or s, s el ect eda se nt en ce b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, orfai le d t o a de qu at el y

expl ai n the sen te nc e itim po se d. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3d13 19 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Cal de ro n- Gam ez d oe s n otco nt en d tha t the di stric t co urt i m pr op erl y cal cu la te d t he gu id el in es ran ge or t ha t i t re li edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s. In st ead , Although w e usually

apply the plain er

ror standa rd whe re the defe ndant fa iled to raise 2 the issue in the district court, see United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005), which the g overnme nt argues occ urre d here , it is unnecessar y to decide whether

a plain err or standar d applies her e bec ause Calde ron-Ga mez’s arguments fail re g ardle ss. 4he arg ue s t ha t the co urt fa il edto ad equa te ly exp la in it s s en te nc e an d c on si de r th e

ap pr op ria te fact or s b ecau se itdi d n otsp eci fic al ly stat e th atitha d c on si de red Cal de ro n- Gam ez’s “ cu ltur al ass im il at io n” as areas on th atitco ul d d ep art do wnwar d fr om

th e g ui de li ne s rang e. Altho ug h we h av e im pl ie d t ha t a d is tri ct co urt m ay de part f ro m th e g ui de li ne s b as edoncu ltur al ass im il at io n, s ee Sanc he zVale nc ia , 14 8 F .3d12 73 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ), th atdo es no t m eana di stric t co urt m us t do so no r do es itm ean th atth e d is tri ctco urt h as to sp eci fic al ly stat e itco ns id ered th atis su e in de ci di ng no t t o v ary do wnwar d fr om th e g ui de li ne s rang e. See R it a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 3 56 , 12 7 S .Ct. 2 45 6, 2 46 8 (2 00 7) (“ [W] he n ajud ge de ci de s s im

pl y to ap pl y th e Gui de li ne s t o apa rti cu lar cas e, do in g s o wi ll no t ne ces saril y

requi re l en gt hy exp la na ti on .”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Irey, 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 95 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (en ba nc ) (“No m em be r of th is Co urt h as ev er b efo re in di cat edth ata se nt en ci ng jud ge is requi redto art ic ul at e h is fin di ng s an d re as on in g with g reatde ta il or i n any det ai l fo r th atm atte r.”). Fu rth er, Cal de ro n- Gam ez d id no t o bjec t t o t he fai rn es s o f th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e o r sp eci fic al ly askth e d is tri ct co urt t o c on si de r hi s cu ltur al ass im il at io n. Se e Ri ta , 55 1 U.S. at35 7, 1 27 S.Ct . at 24 68 (“ Unl es s a p arty

co nt es ts th e Gui de li ne s s en te nc e g en eral ly und er § 35 53 (a) . . . or arg ue s fo r de pa rtu re, the jud ge no rm al ly needsay no m or e.”). Acco rd in gl y , whe n t he di st ric t co urt s ta te d t ha t i t co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, an d t ha t i t 5was pa rti cu la rly dis tu rb edby Cald ero n- Gam ez’s p ers is te ntdi sr eg ardforth e la w, it

di d n otim

po se a pr oc edur al ly unr eas on ab le sen te nc e. B. To d et erm in e if

a se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le , “we m us t, as th e Supr em e Co urt h as in st ru ct edus , con si de r th e to ta li ty of th e fac ts an d ci rcu m st an ces .” Irey, 61 2 F .3dat 1 18 9. “ [O]rdi na ril y we . . . ex pe cta se nt en ce withi n t he Gui de li ne s ra ng e to be reas on ab le .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d 78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e wil l v acat e a s en te nc e fo r subs ta nt iv e un reas on ab le ne ss “ if, b uton ly if, we are l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar err orof ju dg m en t i n wei gh in g t he § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s b y

arri vi ng at asen te nc e th atli es ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le se nt en ces di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Ire y , 61 2 F .3dat 1 19 0 (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Here, the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g the withi n- th e-g ui de li ne sran ge sen te nc e an d C al de ro n- Gam ez’s p ers is ta ntan d re pe ti ti ve hi st ory of v io la ti ng th e la w, supp orts th e 2 7- m on th sen te nc e im po se d. AFFIRMED.

6