FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 28, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12435 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 9 9 - 0 8 1 2 5 - C R - DT KH U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A L A N R I C H A R D L E W I S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 25, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A l a n R i c ha r d L e w i s appe a l s hi s 151- m onth s e nt e nc e , i m pos e d upon2

r e s e n t e n c i n g , f

o r : ( 1 ) c o n s p i r a c y t o c o mmi tma i l f r au d , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U . S. C. §§ 371, 1341, a nd 1343; ( 2) m a i l f r aud, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 1341, a nd 2; ( 3 ) c o n s p i r a c y t o l au n d e rp r o c e e d s o f i l l e g a l a c t i v i ty , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 1 9 5 6 ( h ) ; a n d ( 4 ) f

o u rc o u n ts o f

lau n d e r in g m a il a n d w ir e f r au d p r o c e e d s , in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 6(a) (1)( B ). L ew i s c on t ends thatthe di stri ctcourt im p o s e d ap r o c e d u r a lly u n r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e b e c au s e it: ( 1 ) f a ile d p r o p e r ly to co n si d er th e 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors; and (2 ) en h an ced h i s g u i d el i n e o ffen se le v e l b a s e d o n f

a c ts n o t c h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t o rf o u n d b y th e ju ry . Af t e rUn i t e d S t a t e s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U. S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S . C t . 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , we r e vi e w ade f

e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e f

orr e a s onabl e ne s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 44 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). “ [A ] se nt ence m aybe re vi ew ed for procedural o rs u b s ta n tiv e u n r e a s o n ab le n e s s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . H u n t, 4 5 9 F .3 d 1 1 8 0 , 1 1 8 2 n .3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) . Wh e n r e v i e wi n g th e s e n t e n c e f o rp r o c e d u r a l r e a s o n ab l e n e s s , we m ust“ ensure thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed no si gn i fi cantprocedural error, such a s f a i l i ng t o c a l c ul a t e ( ori m pr ope r l y c a l c ul a t i ng) the G ui de l i ne s r a nge , tr e a t i ng the G u i d el i n es as m an d at o ry, fai l i n g t o co n si d er th e [1 8 U . S . C . ] § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors, s e le c tin g as e n te n c e b a s e d o n c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s f a c ts , o rf a ilin g to a d e q u a te ly e xpl a i n the c hos e n s e nt e nc e . ” G a l l v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 552 U . S . ___, 128 S . C t . 586, 5 9 7 ( 2 0 0 7 ) .3

“ T he se nt enci ng j ud ge shou l d setforth eno ug h t o sat i sf y the appel l at e c ou rt tha the ha s c ons i de r e d the pa rt i e s ’ a r gum e nt s a nd ha s ar e a s one d ba s i s f or e xe r c i s i ng hi s ow n l e ga l de c i s i onm a ki ng author i ty . ” R i t av. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 551 U . S . ___, 127 S . C t . 2456, 2468 ( 2007) . G e ne r a l l y , w he n s e nt e nc i ng i ns i de the advi sorygu i del i ne ra ng e, the di stri ctcourti s r equi re d n ei ther t o st at e e xp l i ci t l y that i tha s c ons i de r e d e a c h of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s i n ope n c our t , nort o gi ve al e ngthy e xpl a na t i on f

ori t s s e nt e nc e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A gba i , 497 F . 3d 1226, 1230 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c itin g R ita , 5 5 1 U .S . a t_

__ , 1 2 7 S . C t. a t 2 4 6 8

– 6 9 ) . 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) prov i des thatthe di stri ctcourt“ shal l i m po se a s ent ence tha ti s s uf

f i c i e nt , butnotgr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry , ” t o c om pl y w i th the ne e d f orthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d: ( A ) t o r e f

l e c tthe s e r i ous ne s s of

the of f e ns e , t o pr om ot e r e s pe c tf orthe la w , a n d to p r o v id e ju s t p u n is h m e n t f o rth e o f f e n s e ; ( B ) to a f f o r d a d e q u a te d e te rr e n c e to c r im in a l c o n d u c t; ( C ) t o pr ot e c tthe publ i c f r om f ur the rc r i m e s of

the de f e nda nt ; a nd (D ) t o p rovi de the defendantw i th n ee ded edu ca t i on al or vo ca t i on al trai n i n g , m ed i cal care, or o th er co rrect i o n al treatm en ti n th e m o st ef fe ct i ve m anner. 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . O ther f ac t ors thatthe se nt enci ng courtshou l d con si der und er § 3553( a ) i nc l ude the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e , the hi s t ory a nd c h a r a c te r is tic s o f

th e d e f e n d a n t, th e k in d s o f

s e n te n c e s a v a ilab le , a n d th e ap p lic ab le gui de l i ne s r a nge . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 786 ( 11th C i r . 2005)4

( c i t i ng 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ) . B ooke rdoe s notpr ohi bi tadi s tr i c tc our tf r om m a ki ng f i ndi ngs be y ond w ha tthe de f e nda nta dm i t s w he n the de f e nda nti s not se nt ence d b ey on d the st atut ory m axi m um , and the courtconsi ders the gu i del i nes a s m e r e ly a d v is o ry . U n ite dS ta te s v . S m ith , 4 8 0 F .3 d 1 2 7 7 , 1 2 8 1 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 8 S . C t. 1 7 5 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . C ontr a ry t o L e w i s ’ c ont e nt i on, a thi s s e nt e nc e he a r i ng the di s tr i c tc our tnot on l y s t at ed thati thad con si dere d al l of the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, bu ti tal so di sc usse d se vera l of them . S peci fi ca l l y, the courtdi sc usse d L ew i s’ s c hara ct er i st i cs , the need t o de t e rothe r s f

r om c om m i tt i ng s i m i l a rf r auds , a nd s t a t e d tha tthe na tur e of the of f e ns e w a s “ ve ry , ve ry s e r i ous ” a nd tha ti tha d f i na nc i a l l y de va s t a t e d num e r ous i ndi vi dua l s . L e w i s ha s notde m ons tr a t e d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d a p r o c e d u r a lly u n r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e b y f a ilin g to c o n s id e rth e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . S e e T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t786. A dd i t i on al l y, L ew i s’ 15 1-m on th sent ence , atthe bo tt om of the gu i del i nes r a n g e , is le s s th a n th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m o f 2 0 y e a r s im p r is o n m e n t f o rth e m a il and w i re l aund er i ng coun t s a l on e. T he di stri ctcourtw as there fore autho ri ze d w he n c a l c ul a t i ng the a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r ange t o f i nd by apr e ponde r a nc e of the evi dence fa ct s bey on d tho se thatL ew i s a dm i tt ed or thatw er e f ou nd by the j ury b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. S e e S m ith , 4 8 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 1 .5

AF F I RME D.