FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 17, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 12 82 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cr-1 40 04 -KMM -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, ve rs us ROLLIE GILLIAM, JR., a.k .a. Ro ll ie Gil li am , 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 17 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, AN DERSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: The di stric t co urt s en te nc edRo ll ie Gil li am , Jr., a ca reeroff en de r, to a pr is onte rm

of 3 27 m on th s af

te r he pl edgu il ty (purs ua ntto a pl ea ag reem en t) t o co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 5 o r m or e g ram s o f co cai ne ba se , i.e., “ crac k c oc ai ne ”, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 . Gill ia m ’s sen te nc e was at th e to p o f th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s s en te nc e ran ge , 26 2 -3 27 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Gil li am

ap pe al s h is sen te nc e, co nt en di ng (1) th atth e d is tri ctco urt di d n otad equa te ly exp la in it s re as on s fo r de nyin g h is m ot io n fo r a d own ward va ria nc e fro m

th e se nt en ce ra ng e, an d (2 ) th athi s s en te nc e was un reas on ab le an d ex ces si ve be cau se th e co urt al le ge dl y be li ev edth atitco ul d n otco ns id er the crac k/po wde r co cai ne di sp ari ti es insen te nc in g h im . Inth e se nt en ci ng reg im e ex is ti ng aft er Uni te d Sta tes v. Bo ok er , 54 3 U.S. 22 0, 1 25 S.Ct . 73 8, 1 60 L.Ed.2d62 1 (2 00 5) , sen te nc in g d eci si on s ar e rev ie wedon ap pe al forreas on ab le ne ss . Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 6, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 59 4, 1 69 L.Ed.2d44 5 (2 00 7) . A revi ew fo r rea so nabl en es s re qu ire s an ap pe ll at e co urt t o app ly a defe ren ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ardto th e d efen da nt ’s se nt en ce, wh ethe r th e se nt en ce i s i ns id e o r ou ts id e th e Gui de li ne s s en te nc e ran ge . Id. at 4 1, 1 28 S.Ct . at 5 91 . The famili ar ab us e-o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard“ al lo ws a ran ge of c ho ic e fo r th e d is tri ctco urt, s o l on g a s tha t ch oi ce d oe s n otco ns ti tu te a cl ear e rro r of

jud gm en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) , pe ti ti on fo r ce rt . fi le d , (U.S. Nov . 24 , 20 10 ) 2(No . 10 -7 27 ). Spe ci fic al ly, su cha rev ie w requi res th atwe in vo ke th e fo ll owi ng

two -s te p p ro ces s t o e va lu at e p ro cedur al an d s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss : It m us t fi rs t en su re tha t the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d n o s ig ni fic an t pr oc edur al erro r, su chas f ai li ng to cal cu la te (orim

pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g t he 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 a se nt en ce b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to ad equa te ly ex pl ai n t he ch os ensen te nc e-i nc lu di ng anex pl an at io n fo r any de vi at io n fr om

th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e. Ass um in g t ha t the di stric t co urt’s s en te nc in g d eci si on is pro cedur al ly sou nd , th e ap pe ll at e co urt sh ou ldth enco ns id er the subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f th e se nt en ce im po se d . . . . Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S .Ct. at59 7. Pro cedur al so un dn es s as su m es th atth e se nt en ci ng jud ge m us t “pr op erl y cal cu la te th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e . . . .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Pugh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 90 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . After Boo ker , “ th e d is tri ctco urts , whi le no t b ou ndto ap pl y th e Gui de li ne s, m

us t co ns ul t tho se Gui de li ne s an d t ak e th em in to acco un t wh en se nt en ci ng .” Uni te d Sta tes v. C ra wf ord, 40 7 F .3d11 74 , 11 78 (11 thCir . 20 05 ) (quo tati onan d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . “ Thi s co ns ul ta ti on requi rem en t, ata m in im um , ob li ge s the di st ric t co urt t o c al cu la te co rr ect ly th e se nt en ci ng ran ge pre sc rib edby th e Gui de li ne s[ .] ” Id. The sen te nc in g ju dg e’s ex pl an at io n fo r th e ch os ensen te nc e m ay be bri ef an d i s t o b e ev al ua te d i n c on jun ct io n wi th th e rec or d a ndco nt ex t o f th e cas e . Rita v. Uni te d Sta tes , 55 1 U.S. 3 38 , 35 8- 59 ; 1 27 S.Ct . 24 56 , 24 69 , 16 8 3L.Ed.2 d 2 03 (20 07 ). “ The sen te nc in g ju dg e sh ou ldsetforth en ou gh to sat is fy th e ap pe ll at e co urt tha t h e h as co ns id eredth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d h as a reas on ed ba si s fo r ex erci si ng hi s o wn l eg al de ci si on m ak in g aut ho rit y .” Id. at 3 56 , 12 7 S .Ct. at24 68 . In a rri vi ng at areas on ab le sen te nc e, th e d is tri ctco urt s ha ll im po se a se nt en ce tha t i s “ 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 ne edfor th e se nt en ce i m

po se d: (A) to refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se , to pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, andto pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se ; (B) t o a ffo rdad equa te de te rren ce t o c riminal co nduc t; (C) t o p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m furth er cr im es of t he de fen dant ; an d (D) to pro vi de th e d efen da ntwith n eed ededuc at io na l o r vo cat io na l tra in in g, m ed ic al care , or o th er co rrec ti on al tre atm en t i n t he m os t effe ct iv e m an ne r. 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Oth er fa ct or s tha t the sen te nc in g c ou rt s ho ul d c on si de r are th e fo ll owi ng : (1 ) th e n atur e an d c irc um st an ces of the off en se an d t he hi st ory

an d ch arac te ris ti cs of t he de fen da nt ; (2 ) th e k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e; (3) th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ran ge ; (4 ) pe rti ne ntpo li cy st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on ; (5 ) th e n eedto av oi d u nwa nt edsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s among si mil arl y si tu at edde fen da nt s; an d (6 ) th e n eedto pro vi de res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 86 (11 thCir . 20 05 ) (ci ti ng 18 U.S.C.

4§ 3 55 3( a)).

On ap pe al , th e “ hi gh ly defer en ti al ” rev ie w forsubs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s do es no t i nv ol ve th e co ns id erat io n o f eac h i nd iv idua l d eci si on th e co urt m ak es du rin g s en te nc in g. Uni te d Sta tes v. Do rma n , 48 8 F .3d93 6, 9 38 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). In st ead , itrequi res a rev ie w of o nl y th e fi na l s en te nc e fo r rea so nabl en es s i n l ig ht of th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Id. “ [T]here i s a r an ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es fro m whi chth e d is tri ctco urt m ay ch oo se ,” an d o rd in ari ly, we ex pe cta se nt en ce wi th in th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e to be reas on ab le . Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88 . “ The di st ric t co urt m us t ev al ua te all of t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s wh enarri vi ng at asen te nc e, bu t i s pe rm it te d t o a tt ach gre atweig htto on e fac to r ov er o th ers .” Uni te d Sta tes v. S ha w , 56 0 F .3d 12 30 , 12 37 (11 th Cir .) (quo ta ti on an d c it at io n o m it te d) , cer t. d en ie d , 12 9 S.Ct . 28 47 (20 09 ). W e d o “ no t re weig h re le va ntfact or s n ordo we rem an d fo r re-s en te nc in g u nl es s the di stric t co urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s b y arri vi ng at asen te nc e o ut si de th e ran ge of reas on ab le sen te nc es .” Uni te d Sta tes v. La ng st on , 59 0 F .3d12 26 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Rathe r, we de te rm in e if th e se nt en ce “ fai l[e d] to ach ie ve th e p ur po se s o f se nt en ci ng as s ta te d i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a).” Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88 . Afte r rev ie w of t he reco rdan d c on si de rat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt ad equa te ly exp la in edit s re as on in g t o re ly on 5Gil li am ’s st atus as acare er o ffen de r an d h is pa stcri m in al hi st ory forit s re fu sa l t o effe cta do wnwar d v ari an ce. Fu rth er, a re vi ew of th e rec or d re ve al s tha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t b el ie ve th atitco ul d n otco ns id er the crac k/po wde r co cai ne di sp ari ti es , bu t i ns te adco nf irmed it s b el ie f th atth e p ol ic ie s re ga rd in g t he ne edto pr ev en t re ci di vi sm

warran te d t he sen te nc e im po se d. In li gh t o f Gil li am ’s reci di vi sthi st ory , a se nt en ce atth e to p o f th e Gui de li ne s s en te nc e ran ge was n ot un reas on ab le . AFFIRMED.

6