FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT OCTOB ER 17, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1508 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 06-60112 -CR- JIC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOEL DAVID SANTANA-GUZ MAN, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt for the Southern D istrict of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(O ct ob er17, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N a nd B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Judg es . PE R CU RIA M:2

D ef en dant- Appe llant J oe l D av id S an tana -Guz m anappe al s hi s c onvi ct ion an d 4 6- m on th sen te nc e fo r at te m pt edil le ga l re en try int o t he Uni te d S ta te s. No r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. W e first a ddress Santana-G uzm an’ s challenge to his con viction . SantanaG uz m ana sse rt s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have dis m iss ed the ind ic tm en t ch ar gin g hi m

w itha tte m

pte d il le ga l r ee ntr

y be ca use the ind ic tm en t f

ai le d to a lle ge that Santana-G uzm an acted w ith specific intent to comm it this o ffense. SantanaG uz m anc onc ed es that w e re j ec te d hi s arg um en t i n our de ci sio n inU nit ed S ta te s v. Pe ra lt- Re y es , 131 F . 3d 9 56 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . W e ar e boun d to f oll owour pr ior pr ec ed en t; an d w e af

fi rm S an tana -Guz m an ’ s c onvi ct ion . S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. St ee le , 147 F . 3d 1 316, 131 7- 18 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) ( enbanc ) (“ U nde r our pr ior pr ec ed en t r

ule , apane l c an not

ove rr ule apr ior

one ’ s ho ldi ng . . . . ” ); Carg ill v. T ur pin , 120 F . 3d 1 366, 138 6 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) ( “ T he lawof thi s c ir cu it is e m

pha tic that onlythe Suprem e Court or this court sittin g en banc can j udicially overrule a prior panel decision.”). W e now addre ss Santana-G uzm an’ s challenges to his sentence. SantanaG uz m ana rg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in not c onsi de ri ng h is a cc ep tanc e of responsib ility

when deter

m ining his sentence. B efore the district court, SantanaG uz m ana rg ue d th at

he sho uld

r ec ei ve aone -l ev el de cr ea se in his of fe nse le ve l f

orAlthough it is not entirely clea r, it appea

rs that Santan a- Gu z m an al s o argues that the district 1 court e rre d b y m i s co n s truinghis argument -- whic h supported a r eduction in his sentence for acc eptanc e o f responsibili ty -- a s an objec tion to the gove rnment’s fa ilure to move for such a reduc tion a

nd then overr

uling that objection. Even if we assume that the district c o u rt const rued Sa n ta n a - G u zm an ’ s ar gume n t a s h e d e s c r ib e d , Sa n ta n a - G u zm anc la

r if ie d f o r th e d is tr ic t c o urt tha t he had not r aised a

n objection bec ause he coul d n o t r e c e ive an a cce ptance -of- responsibility reduc tion unless the gov ernment filed a motion supporting that r eduction. In response to that statement by Santa na -Guzma

n, the dis tr ic t c ourt ins tr

uc te d the pa

rt ie s to dis re g ard

its ru lin g . We se e no re ve rs ibl e err or her e. 3 acce ptance of re spon sibili ty pursuant to U. S. S. G. § 3E1.1( b). He acknowledged that the dis tr ic t c ourt c oul d a ppl y thi s on e- le ve l r ed

uc tio n on ly

upo n am oti on b y the gov er nm en t, w hic h w as not

m ad e in this c as e; but

S an tana -Guz m ansti ll as se rt ed that the dis tr ic t c ourt c oul d c onsi de r his a cc ep tanc e of r es pons ibi lity

in im posi ng a r ea sona ble se nte nc e. O n a

ppe al , S an tana -Guz m anc ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have r ed uc ed his se nte nc e fo r his ti m el y a cc ep tanc e of re spon sib ili ty

und er 18 U . S. C. § 35 53. 1 A ft er the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n inU nit ed S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 125 S . Ct . 738 (200 5), w e re view a sentence for r easonableness in th e light of the factors set out a t 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) . U nit ed S ta te s v. W ini nge ar , 422 F . 3d 1 241, 124 4- 46 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) . Unde r se ct ion355 3( a) , adis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r, a m ong oth er thi ngs, the na tur e an d c ir cu m stanc es of the of fe nse , the his tor

y a nd ch ar ac te ri sti cs of

the de fe ndant, the ne ed

f or a de qua te de te rr en ce a nd p ro te ct ionof the pub lic , pol ic y

state m en ts o f the S en te nc ing Co m m iss ion , pr ovi sio n f

or the4

m ed ic al a nd e duc at ion al ne ed s of the de fe ndant, a nd the ne ed to av oid unw ar rante d se nte nc ing dis pari tie s. S ee 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) (1 )- (7 ). “ Re vie wf or reasonableness is deferential”; and “ the party who challenges the sentence bear s the burden of establish ing th at the sentence is unreasonable in the ligh t of [the] re co rd a nd the f ac tor s inse ct ion355 3( a) . ” U nit ed S ta te s v. T al le y , 431 F . 3d 7 84, 78 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . H er e, a s w e ha ve dis cu sse d, S an tana -Guz m ana rg ue d a t se nte nc ing that the district court sho uld cons ider that he did not rec eive an acc eptance-ofre spon sib ili ty

r ed uc tio n; and i n se nte nc ing S an tana -Guz m anto the lowe nd o f his advis or y G uid el ine s r an ge , the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ai ne d th at it c onsi de re d th e s t at emen t s o f t h e p ar t i es , t h e s ec t i o n 3 5 5 3 (a ) f ac t o rs , a n dSa n t an a- Gu zman ’s Guidelines range. See id. (noting that “ ordinarily we would expect a sentence w ith in the G uid el ine s r an ge to be r ea sona ble ”) . T he S upr em e Co urt ha s r ec en tly ex pla ine d th at

“ a co urt of

appe al s m ay

appl y apr es um pti on o f re as ona

ble ne ss t o a dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc e that r ef le ct s apr ope r ap pli catio n of the S en te nc ing Gui de li ne s.” Se e Ri ta v. Un it edSta te s, 1 27 S.Ct . 24 56 , 24 62 (20 07 ).And S antana -Guzman cites no authority for his ar gument that, in calculating his sentenc e, the 2 district court should have c onsidered t h e go v er n ment’s fa ilure to file a motion for a sentenc e reduc tion for ac cepta

nce of responsibility . 5 The district court w as not required to discus s all of the section 355 3(a) fa ct or s a t the se nte nc ing he ar ing . S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. S co tt, 426 F . 3d 1 324, 132 9 2 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) ( ex pla ini ng tha t “ nothin g inBo oke r or e lse w he re r equir es the dis tr ic t c ourt t o st at e on the r ec or d th at it ha s e xpl ic itl y

c onsi de re d e ac h of

the se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s o r to di sc us s ea ch of t he sec ti on 35 53 (a) fa ct or s” ). Nothing in the rec ord convin ces us that Santana-Guzm an’ s sentence wa s unr ea sona

ble in the li ght

of the se ct ion355 3( a) f

ac tor s. Santana -Guz m ana lso c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate d th e Fi fth A m en dm en t by

e nhanc ing his se nte nc e ba se d onapr ior c onvi ct ionnot

c harg ed in hi s i nd ic tm en t. We revi ew San ta na -Gu zm an ’s con st it ut io na l ch al le ng e d e n ov o. See United States v. Paz , 405 F. 3d 94 6, 948 (11th Cir. 2005). Under A lm endarez- Torr es v. U nited States, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), w hich re m ai ns b ind ing pr ec ed en t, “ the gov er nm en t ne ed

not a lle ge in its ind ic tm en t and ne ed not pr ove be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt tha t a

de fe ndant h ad

pr ior c onvi ct ion s for a district court to use those convictio ns for purposes of enhancing a sentence. ” United States v. Cam acho-Ibarquen, 410 F.3d 1307 , 1315 (11th Cir. 2005); see al so U nit ed

S ta te s v. O rd

uno- Mi re le s, 405 F . 3d 9 60, 963 ( 11th C ir . 200 5)6

(explaining that Alm endarez- Torr es rem ains goo d law “until the Suprem e Court determ ines that Alm endarez- Torr es is not cont rolling p rece dent”) (internal quot at ionom itt ed ). B ec au se w e co nti nue to fo llo wA lm en dare z- T or re s, the district court did n ot err in using Santana-Guzm an’ s prior convictio n to enhance his sentence. W e af firm Santana-Guzm an’ s convictio n and sentence. AFFIRMED.