[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 16 16 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 1- cr-1 40 10 -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 JOSE PAC HECO-TZUL, a.k .a. Jo se Teod or o P ach eco -Tzu l, a.k .a. Jo se Pach eco , 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st14 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Jo se Pach eco -Tzu l, a n at iv e o f Gua te m al a, pl ead edgu il ty to re en te rin g the Case: 11-16164 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 1 of 4Uni te d S tate s af te r ha vi ng be ende po rte d, i n v io la ti on of 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6( a) an d (b )(2 ), an d was sen te nc edto 57 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. He ap pe al s tha t s en te nc e, co nt en di ng th e d is tri ctco urt i nc orrect ly calcu late d h is sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s ra ng e ba se d o n a n e rro ne ou s co nc lu si on th athe ha d p rev io us ly beenco nv ic te d o f a cri m e of vi ol en ce. Bec au se we fin d tha t h e h as waiv edan y ch al le ng e to th e al te rn at iv e ba si s the di st ric t co urt g av e fo r hi s s en te nc e, ho wev er, an y erro r in th atcal cu la ti on is ne ces sa ril y

ha rm le ss , andwe acco rd in gl y affi rm . In20 07 , Pach eco -Tzu l was co nv ic te d i n F lo rid a st at e co urt o f ch il d abu se un de r Fl or id a St atut e § 82 7.0 3. He was de po rte d i n M ay of 2 01 0. Bu t i n J anua ry 20 11 , he was on ce ag ai n a rres te d i n F lo rid a an d c ha rg edwith i ll eg al ly reent eri ng th e Uni te d S ta te s fo ll owi ng hi s 2 01 0 d ep orta ti on . Pach eco -Tzu l p le ad edgu il ty to th atch arg e. The Pro ba ti on Offic e in cl ud edwithi n i ts reco m m en de d s en te nc in g gu id el in es cal cu la ti on a 16 -le ve l en hanc em en t fo r Pac he co -Tzu l’s p rio r Fl or id a ch il d abu se co nv ic ti on as a“ cri m e o f vi ol en ce” wi th in th e m ean in g o f U.S.S.G. § 2 L1.2 (b )(1 )(A). Pac he co -Tzu l o bjec te d t o t he en ha nc em en t an d t he factua l as se rti on s upo n wh ic h i t was ba se d. Bu t, athi s s en te nc in g h eari ng , th e d is tri ct co urt o ve rru le d P ach eco -Tzu l’s o bjec ti on , fin di ng th atth ere was anad equa te factua l b as is inth e rec or ds of P ach eco -Tzu l’s s tate pro ceed in gs to co nc lu de th at 2 Case: 11-16164 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 2 of 4hi s ch il d abu se co nv ic ti onwas i nd eeda cri m e o f vi ol en ce. The di st ric t co urt wen t

on to st at e th at , “ in th e al te rn at iv e,” ev enif the co nv ic ti on “ di d n otco ns ti tu te a cri m e o f vi ol en ce, the n fo r th e rec or d I wo ul d s ay th atth is Co urt wo ul d v ary up ward ” to th e sa m e 5 7- m on th sen te nc e th e co urt ac tu al ly im po se d. An d t he co urt di sc us se d the sen te nc in g fa ct or s u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 th atsupp orte d s uc h a va ria nc e. W e h av e h el d tha t, wh ena di st ric t co urt i nd ic at es th atitwou ldim po se th e sa m e se nt en ce ev enif i t i s u lt im at el y pro ve d wro ng ona di sp ut edgu id el in es is su e, we ne edno t d eci de th e g ui de li ne s i ss ue if the sen te nc e is ot he rwis e rea so nabl e. Uni te d Sta tes v. K

een e , 47 0 F .3d13 47 , 13 49 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ [I]t is [ne ithe r] ne ces sa ry to de ci de gu id el in es is su es or r em an d c as es forne w sen te nc e pr oc eed in gs [ba se d o n a ] gu id el in es erro r” i f th e d is tri ctco urt re as on ab ly rule d th at“ itwou ldha ve im

po se d the same sen te nc e, us in g i ts § 3 55 3( a) au th or ity , eve n witho utth e [g ui de li ne s] enh an cem en t.” ( in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). That is so be cau se , if the di st ric t co urt re as on ab ly deci de s tha t a s en te nc e is ap pr op ria te ba se d upo n the § 3 55 3 fa ct or s re ga rd le ss of the gu id el in e ran ge , any erro r in cal cu la ti ng th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e wou ldbe ha rm le ss . Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo za no , 49 0 F.3 d 1 31 7, 1 32 4- 25 (11 thCir . 20 07 ). On ap pe al , Pach eco -Tzu l co nt en ds th atFlo rid a St atut e § 82 7.0 3 p ro sc rib es 3 Case: 11-16164 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 3 of 4bo th co nduc t tha t wo ul d qua li fy as acri m e o f vi ol en ce an d c on du ctth atwou ldno t, an d tha t the reco rd s the di st ric t co urt was en ti tl edto rel y up on do no t d efi ni ti ve ly es tabl is h tha t h is ch il d abu se co nv ic ti on was i n t he form er ca te go ry . His b rie f on ap pe al is de vo te d e xc lu si ve ly to ar gu in g t ha t, as a res ul t, the di st ric t co urt’s gu id el in es cal cu la ti on was e rro ne ou s. At n o p oi ntdo es he ad dr es s the di st ric t co urt’s al te rn at iv e ru li ng th ata 57 -m on thsen te nc e was reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e se nt en ci ng fact or s ev enif i ts gu id el in es cal cu la ti on was i nc orrect . Bec au se he ha s n otch al le ng edth e rea so nabl en es s o f hi s s en te nc e ev en as su m in g tha t the cal cu la ti on was wro ng , Pach eco -Tzu l h as ab an do ne d a ny arg um en t h e m ay

have ha d tha t the all eg edgu id el in es erro r was no t h arm le ss . Uni te d Sta tes v. J

erni ga n , 34 1 F .3d12 73 , 12 83 n.8 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (rei te rat in g th atanarg um en t n otdi sc us se d i n a n i ni ti al bri ef i s ab an do ne d) . As a res ul t, we ne edno t re ach whet he r ad equa te ev id en ce s up po rte d app li cat io n o f th e 1 6- le ve l cri m e-o f-v io le nc e en ha nc em en t fo r Pac he co -Tzu l’s ch il d abu se co nv ic ti on . Se e Lo za no , 49 0 F .3dat 1 32 4 (“ Ourrev ie w is ‘ de fere nt ia l’ to th e d is tri ctco urt, an d i t is th e de fe nd an ts ’ bu rd

en to estab lish th at

th ei r s en te nc es ar e u nr ea so na bl e in li gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e se ct io n 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s.” ( em ph as is ad de d) ). AFFIRMED .

4 Case: 11-16164 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 4 of 4