FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L13, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 14 89 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :1 0- cr-1 00 07 -KMM -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us ADRIAN A. HERNAND EZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el lant .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 13 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES, M ARTIN, an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Adr ian Herna nd ez ap pe al s h is 41 -m on thsen te nc e, im po se d a fte r he pl ead ed gu il ty to o ne co un t o f ree ntry of ade po rte d a li en , invi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . §§ 13 26 (a), (b )(1 ). Hern an de z ch al le ng es th e rea so nabl en es s o f hi s s en te nc e. Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm . I. “ W e rev ie w sen te nc in g d eci si on s o nl y forab us e o f di sc ret io n, an d we u se a two -s te p p ro ces s.” Un it edSta te s v . Sha w, 56 0 F .3d12 30 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Fi rs t, we “ 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 p ro cedur 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 rang e, tre at 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, se le ct in g asen te nc e 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 the ch os ensen te nc e—i nc lu di ng anexpl an at io n fo r an y de vi at io n fr om

th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e.” Id . (qu ot in g Gal l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 , 12 8 S . Ct. 58 6, 5 97 (20 07 )). If we co nc lu de th atno pro cedur al erro r oc cu rred , “ th e se co nd st ep is to rev ie w th e se nt en ce’s ‘subs tant iv e rea so nabl en es s’ 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 a ny vari an ce fr om th e Gui de li ne s ran ge .’ ” Id . (qu ot in g Gal l, 5 52 U.S. at 5 1, 1 28 S. Ct. at59 7) . “ If the di st ric t co urt’s s en te nc e is withi n the gu id el in es ran ge , we exp ectth atth e se nt en ce i s reas on ab le .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Alfar o- Mo nc ad a, 60 7 F .3d72 0, 7 35 (11 th Cir . 220 10 ); s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Hun t, 5 26 F.3d73 9, 7 46 (11 th Cir . 20 08 )

(“ Altho ug h we d o n otau to m at ic al ly pres um e a s en te nc e withi n the gu id el in es ran ge is reas on ab le , we ‘ or di na ril y . . . ex pe cta se nt en ce wi th in th e Gui de li ne s ran ge to be reas on ab le .’ ” (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 )). As fo r pr oc edur al erro r, Hern an de z co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto co ns id er the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. His arg um en t l ack s m eri t. Inim po si ng it s se nt en ce, the di st ric t co urt s ta te d tha t i t h ad“ co ns id eredth e st at em en ts of a ll [th e] pa rti es [an d] th e advi so ry gu id el in es an d the st atut ory fact or s.” Th e d is tri ct co urt’s ac kn owl ed gm en t tha t i t h adco ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s “ al on e is su ffi ci en t i n p os t-B oo ke r se nt en ces .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sco tt , 42 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 30 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . No p ro cedur al erro r oc cu rred . Hern an de z al so ch al le ng es th e subs tant iv e rea so nabl en es s o f hi s 4 1- m on th se nt en ce, wh ic h was at t he lo wes t en d o f hi s advi so ry Gui de li ne s ra ng e o f 41 to 51 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t. He arg ue s tha t h is sen te nc e is subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se hi s Gu id el in es ran ge is to o h ig h, an d the di st ric t co urt fa il edto tak e in to acco un t h is cu ltur al ass im il at io n i n thi s co un try andhi s ag e whe n h e co m m it te d th e cri min al off

en se th atres ul te d i n h is de po rta ti on . Howev er, we s ee n o e rro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s i m

po si ti on of alo w-en d g ui de li ne sen te nc e fo r Hern an de z. See

3Uni te d S tate s v . Irey, 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (enba nc ) (We m ay

va cat e a d efen dant ’s sen te nc e as subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le on ly if “ we are l eft with the 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 erro r of jud gm en t i n wei gh in g the § 3 55 3( a) fac to rs by arriv in g a t a s en te nc e th atli es ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” (quo tati onm ark s o m itte d) ). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm Hern an de z’s se nt en ce. AFFIRMED.

4