FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEP 06, 2011 J OHN LEY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 43 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 04 01 -RAL-M AP-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us HERIBERTO RIOS- RIOS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S tate s Di stric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 6, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Heri be rto Rio s- Ri os ap pe al s h is 30 -m on th sen te nc e, im po se d a fte r he pl ead edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to tran sp ort i ll eg al ali en s, i n v io la ti on of 8 U.S.C. § § 1 32 4( a)(1 )(A)(v )(I), (a )(1 )(B) (i) , two co un ts of t ran sp orti ng il le ga l al ie ns , invi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . §§ 13 24 (a)( 1) (A)(i i), (a )(1 )(B) (i) , andon e co un t o f un lawfu l en try by

anali en , invi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . §§ 13 25 (a)( 1) , 13 29 . Rio sRi os co nt en ds th athi s s en te nc e is subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le . After r ev ie w, we affi rm . I. W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e und er a “ de fere nt ia l ab us e-o fdi sc ret io n s tand ard .” Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 41 , 12 8 S . Ct. 5 86 , 59 1 (2 00 7) . In re vi ewin g s en te nc es forreas on ab le ne ss , we per fo rm two st ep s. Un it ed St at es v. Sh aw, 56 0 F .3d12 30 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Fir st , we “ ‘ens ur e th atth e di stric t co urt co m

mit te d n o s ig ni fic an t p ro cedur al erro r, su chas f ai li ng to cal cu la te (o r im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g the Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, s el ect in g asen te nc e b as edon cl earl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to ad equa te ly exp la inth e ch os en se nt en ce— in cl ud in g an e xp lana ti on forany de vi at io n fr om

th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e.’” Id . (qu ot in g Gal l, 5 52 U.S. at 5 1, 1 28 S. Ct. at59 7) . If we co nc lu de th atno pr oc edur al erro r oc curred , “ th e se co ndst ep is to rev ie w th e se nt en ce’s ‘subs tant iv e 2reas on ab le ne ss ’ un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g ‘th e ex te ntof

an y varia nc e fro m

th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e.’” Id. (quo ti ng Gall , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S. Ct . at 5 97 ). “ The party chal le ng in g the reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e ‘bear s the bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g tha t the sen te nc e is un reas on ab le inth e li gh t o f bo th [th e] reco rdan d the fact or s i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a).’” Uni te d S tate s v . Flo res , 57 2 F .3d 12 54 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) ) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ). Here, Ri os -Ri os ch al le ng es on ly the subs tant iv e rea so nabl en es s o f hi s 3 0- m on th sen te nc e. Rio s- Ri os arg ue s tha t h is sen te nc e, whi chrep res en te d an upward va ria nc e fro m

th e advi so ry

gu id el in es ran ge of 1 2 t o 1 8 m on th s i m pr is on m en t, i s gr eat er tha n n eces sary

to ach ie ve th e p ur

po se s o f se nt en ci ng . In i m po si ng it s se nt en ce, the di stric t co urt n ot edth atRio s- Ri os ha d i ll eg al ly ent eredth e Uni te d St at es an d b eenvo lu nt ari ly dep orte d o n fi ve pri oroc cas io ns . The d is tri ctco urt ex pl ai ne d tha t a 3 0- m on th sen te nc e was ne ces sa ry gi ve n R io s- Ri os ’s hi st ory an d ch arac te ris ti cs , th e n eedto de te r fu tu re cri m in al co nduc t, an d the ser io us ne ss of hi s o ffen se s. Th os e were a ll ap pr op ria te co ns id erat io ns un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , we can no t s ay th atth e d is tri ct co urt’s s en te nc e was anab us e o f di sc ret io n. AFFIRMED. 3