FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 27, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 15 52 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :1 0- cr-0 02 21 -TW T-LTW -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 Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us
FRANCIS CO ELORZA-OBREGON,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen 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 ur t for th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 2 7, 2 01 1)

Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES and MARCUS , Cir cu it Ju dg es

. PER CURI AM:Fran ci sc o Elo r z a -Ob reg on ap pe al s hi s 57 -m on th se nt en ce, im po se d aft er he pl ead ed gu il ty to il le ga ll y re-e nt eri ng th e Uni te d St at es aft er c o n v i ct io n of an

ag gr av at ed fel on y an d de po rta ti on , in vi ol at io n of 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a) an d (b )(2 ). On

ap pe al , Elo rza- Obr eg on arg ue s th at th e di st ri ct co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by ap pl y in g

a fu ll 16 -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r il le ga l re-e nt ry aft er co nv ic ti on of an ag gr av at ed
fel on y
. He arg ue s th at : (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in fai li ng to

co ns id er th e hi st or y of th e de ve lo pm en t of th e il le ga l en try se nt en ci ng gu id el in e; (2 )
b ecau se th e gu id el in e was no t de ve lo pe d th ro ug h an em pi ric al ap pr oa ch a n d w a s
th eref or e arb it ra r i l y a r r i ve d at by th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on , it is en ti tl ed to le ss
de fere nc e; an d (3 ) bo th th e fact s un de rlyin g th e pr ev io us co nv ic ti on up on whi ch th e

en ha nc em en t was ba se d an d th e rem ot en es s of th e co nv ic ti on warra nt co ns id erat io n
fo r a s ho rte r se nt en ce. Aft er t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we affi rm

. W e rev ie w t he se nt en ce a d is tri ct co ur t im po se s fo r “ reas on ab le ne ss ,” whi ch

“m e r e l y a sk s whe th er th e tri al co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Pu gh , 51 5 F .3d 11 79 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Ri ta v. Unit ed Sta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8,

35 1 (2 00 7) ).

In rev ie win g se nt en ces fo r reas on ab le ne ss , we typic al ly pe rfo rm two st ep s. Id

.
at 11 90

. Fi rs t, we “ ‘ens ur e th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al

erro r, su ch as fai 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 ran ge ,

2tre at in g th e Gui de li ne s as m an d a t or y , fai li ng to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s,

se le ct in g a se nt en ce ba se d on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s, or fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n
th e ch os en se nt en ce -- in cl ud in g an ex pl an at io n fo r an y de vi at io n fro m th e Gui de li ne s

ran ge .’ ” Id . (qu ot in g Gal l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 (20 07 )). 1

If we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t pr oc ed ur al ly err, we m us t co ns id er

t h e “‘s u b s t a n t i v e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e s e n t e n c e i mp o s e d u n d e r a n
ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ,’ ” ba se d on th e “ ‘tot al it y of th e ci rcu m st an ces .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Gall , 55 2 U.S. at 51 ). Thi s rev ie w is “ de fere nt ia l,” req ui rin g us to de te rm in e

“ whe th er t he sen te nc e im po se d b y th e di st ric t co ur t fai ls to ach ie ve th e p ur po se s o f

se nt en ci ng as st at ed in se ct io n 35 53 (a).” Uni te d St at es v. Tall ey , 43 1 F.3 d 78 4, 78 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). “ The weig ht to be acco rd ed an y gi ve n § 35 53 (a) fact or is a m at te r

co m m it te d to th e so un d di sc ret io n of th e di st ric t co ur t, an d we wil l no t su bs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e rel ev an t fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Am ed eo , 48 7 F.3 d 82 3,

83 2 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ta ti on an d br ack et s om it te d)

. W e wil l “ va cat e th e se nt en ce if, bu t on ly if, we are le ft wit h th e de fin it e an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t

The § 3553(a ) fa ctors include: ( 1) the na ture a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and the 1 history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d for the se ntence imposed to refle ct the seriousness of the offe nse, to promote re spect for the law, a

nd to provide just punishment for the offe nse; (3) the need f

or the sente nce imposed to a ffor d adequa te deter renc e; (4) the need to protec t the public; (5) the ne ed to provide the defe ndant with educational or voca tional training or medica l car e; (6) the kinds of sentenc es ava ilable; (7) the Sente ncing Guidelines ra ng e; (8) the pertinent policy

statements of the Sente ncing Commi ssion; (9) the nee d to avoid unwanted sentenc ing dispa

rities; and (10) the need to pr ovide re stitut ion to victims . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
3co m

m it te d a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s by arri vi ng at

a se nt en ce th at li es ou ts id e th e ran ge of reas on ab le se nt en ces di ct at ed by th e fact s of
th e cas e.” See Uni te d St at es v. Irey, 61 2 F.3 d 11 60 , 11 90 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) , cert

. de ni ed , 13 1 S. Ct

. 18 13 (2 01 1)

. “ The pa rty ch al le ng in g th e

se nt en ce bear s th e bu rd en to sh ow it is un reas on ab le in li gh t of the reco rd an d th e §

35 53 (a) fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Tom e, 61 1 F.3 d 13 71 , 13 78 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ), cert

. de ni ed , 13 1 S .Ct. 6 74 (20 10 ).
Alt ho ug h we do no t au to m at ic al ly pr es um e a se nt en ce wit hi n t h e g u id el in e

ran ge is reas on a b l e , we or di na ril y ex pe ct su ch a se nt en ce to be reas on ab le

. Uni te d

St at es v. Hun t, 52 6 F.3 d 73 9, 74 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ). A se nt en ce im po se d well be lo w
th e st at ut or y m ax im

um is an ot he r in di cat or of a re a s o na bl e se nt en ce. See Uni te d

St at es v. Go nz al ez, 5 50 F.3d 13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ).

In th is cas e, Elo rza- Obr eg on ha s no t de m on st rat ed th at hi s se nt en ce was

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le in li gh t o f t h e reco rd an d th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. The 2

d i s t r i ct co ur t’s se nt en ce of 57 m on th s rep res en te d th e lo wes t en d of th e ap pl ic ab le

gu id el in e ran ge of 57 -7 1 m on th s, an d we wou ld or di na ril y ex pe ct su ch a se nt en ce to
be reas on ab le

. See Hun t , 5 2 6 F

. 3 d a t 74 6. Thi s se nt en ce was al so well be lo w th e
20 -y ear st at ut or y m ax im

um

. See Gon zal ez, 55 0 F.3 d at 13 24 ; 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (b )(2 ).

Elorza-Obre g on has not arg ued that his sentenc e wa s proce durally unrea sonable. 2

4The se nt en ce, m or e o v er, m et th e go al s en co m pa ss ed wit hi n 18 U.S.C. §

35 53 (a). El o r z a -Ob reg on ha d a nu m be r of pr io r co nv ic ti on s whi ch ul ti m at el y

res ul te d in hi s de po rta ti on

. He h a s r e p e a te dl y pr ov id ed al ia se s to la w e nf or cem en t
of fic ers an d fai le d to ap pe ar in co ur t. Co nsi de ri ng E lor za-Ob reg on ’s cri m in al hi st or y ,

a cu st od ia l se nt en ce wit hi n th e gu id el in e ran ge was ne ed ed to pr om ot e res pe ct fo r th e
la w, pr ov id e jus t pu ni sh ment , an d de te r hi m fro m fu rth er cri m in al act iv it y
. See 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ).

Fu rth er, E lo rza- Obr eg on ’s rel ia nc e on Kim br ou gh v. Unit ed St at es , 55 2 U.S.

85 (2 00 7) , d oe s n o t s up po rt hi s co nt en ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by d ecl in in g

to affo rd le ss de fere nc e to an en ha nc em en t gu id el in e on th e gr ou nd th at th e gu id el in e

was no t de ve lo pe d ba se d on em pi ric al da ta

. In Kim

br ou gh , th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld
th at a se nt en ce ou ts id e of th e gu id el in es is no t pe r se un reas on ab le whe n ba se d on th e

se nt en ci ng co ur t’s di sa g r e em en t wit h a se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty pr od uc ed by th e

gu id el in es

. 55 2 U.S. at 91

. The Co ur t fu rth er he ld th at a jud ge is th eref or e pe rm it te d,
ba se d on su ch di sa gr eem en t, to de te rm in e th at a gu id el in es se nt en ce is “ gr eat er th an

ne ces sa ry to se rv e th e ob

jecti ve s of se nt en ci ng .” Id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. In su pp or t
of th is co nc lu si on , th e Co ur t ci te d th e fact th at th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on “ di d no t

ta ke acco un t of em

pi ric al da ta an d na ti on al ex pe rie nc e” in fo rm ul at in g gu id el in es

ran ge s fo r crac k co cai ne of fen se s. Id

. at 10 9 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Howev er, th e

5Co ur t di d no t req ui re a se nt en ci ng jud ge to co ns id er la ck of em pi ric al da ta as a ba si s
fo r de pa rti ng fro m th e gu id el in es

. See ge ne ral ly 55 2 U.S. 85

. W e ha ve li ke wis e sa id
th at un de r Kim

br ou gh , a se nt en ci ng jud ge m ay co ns id er l ack of em

pi ric al ev id en ce

as on e fact or in th e an al y si s of whe th er to de pa rt fro m th e gu id el in es

. Uni te d St at es
v. Sn ip es , 61 1 F .3d 85 5, 8 70 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ). Howev er, we ha ve ne ve r req ui red a

se nt en ci ng jud ge to co ns id er su ch ev id en ce. Cf. id

. (“ The la ck of em pi ric al ev id en ce

wou ld no t req ui re th e who le sa le in va li da ti on of se nt en ci ng gu id el in es .”). The di st ric t

co ur t h ere t he refo re d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n fa il in g t o d o s o.
Elo rza- Obr eg on ’s arg um en ts co nc ern in g th e fact s un de rlyin g th e co nv ic ti on

up on w hic h th e 16 -le ve l en ha nc em en t was ba se d an d th e rem ot en es s of th e co nv ic ti on
li ke wis e fai l t o e st ab li sh th at th e se nt en ci ng co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n. 8 U.S.C. §

13 26 an d U.S.S.G. § 2L1 .2 si m pl y req ui re a di st ric t co ur t, whe n de te rm in in g whe th er

to im po se a pr io r-co nv ic ti on en ha nc em e n t , t o co ns id er whe th er a pr io r co nv ic ti on

co ns ti tu te s, am on g ot he r th in gs , a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce,” bu t do es no t req ui re it to

co ns id er th e se rio us ne ss of th e fact s un de rlyi n g t h e c o n vi ct io ns

. In th is reg ard , it
sh ou ld be no te d th at Elo rza- Obr eg on do es no t arg u e th at hi s pr ev io us co nv ic ti on
f a i le d to m eet th e de fin it io n of “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” in § 2L1 .2(b )(1 )(A)(i i).

Mo reo ve r, we ha ve he ld th at th e il le ga l reen try en ha nc em en t gu id el in e do es no t tu rn

on ho w lo ng ag o th e pr io r co nv ic ti on oc cu rred

. See Un i t e d S t a t e s v.

6C a mac ho -Ib arq ue n, 41 0 F.3 d 13 07 , 13 10 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). The se nt en ci ng co ur t

th eref or e di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n whe n it as se ss ed th e 16 -le ve l en ha nc em en t
wit ho ut co ns id eri ng th es e fac to rs in de te rm in in g t he fin al sen te nc e.
Bec au se Elo rza- O b r eg on ’s se nt en ce was su pp or te d by th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s,

an d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t co m m it a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e
fact or s, th ere was no ab us e of di sc ret io n. Acco rd in gl y , w e a f f i r m th e se nt en ce as

reas on ab le

. AFFIRMED.

7