FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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 02 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 04 77 -J EC-CC H-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us PEDRO MENDOZA, 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 North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 16 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, PRYOR, an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Pedro Men do za ap pe al s h is 46 -m on th sen te nc e, im po se d a fte r he pl ead ed gu il ty to i ll eg al ly reent eri ng th e Uni te d S ta te s af te r de po rta ti on invi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C. § 13 26 (a). Me nd oz a arg ue s tha t h is sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se he ha s b eende po rte d o nl y on ce, h e rem ai ne d o utof t he co un try for anex te nd edpe rio d o f ti m e, he co m m it te d n o n ew cri m e, an d h e is un li ke ly to re tu rnto th e Uni te d S ta te s b ecau se he was abl e to earn a li vi ng in Mex ic o. Me nd oz a al so arg ue s h is sen te nc e is di sp ro po rti on at e to th e m ean se nt en ce i m

po se d b ot h n at io na ll y

an d i n the Nort he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a fo r il le ga l re en try of a d ep orte d a li en . W e rev ie w a fin al sen te nc e im po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt fo r rea so nabl en es s. Uni te d S tate s v . W in in ge ar, 4 22 F.3d12 41 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ The rev ie w fo r subs tant iv e unr eas on ab le ne ss in vo lv es ex am in in g t he to ta li ty of th e 1 ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g an i nqui ry in to whet he r th e st atut ory fact or s i n § 35 53 (a) supp ort the sen te nc e in qu es ti on .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3d13 19 , 13 24 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) , cert . den ie d 1 29 S.Ct . 28 48 (20 09 ). The s en te nc in g c ou rt m us t im po se a se nt en ce “ 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 pu rp os es of s en te nc in g s etforth inth e st atut e. 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). W e

Appellant cha lleng es only the substantive, and not the pr ocedur al, re asonable ness 1 of his sentenc e. 2rev ers e o nl y if “ le ft wi th th e d efi ni te 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 t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s b y arri vi ng ata se nt en ce tha t l ie s o ut si de 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.” Un it edSta te s v . Irey, 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (en ba nc ) (quo ta ti onom itte d) . Men do za fa il s t o d em on st rat e th athi s s en te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. As anin it ia l m at te r, th e 4 6- m on th sen te nc e im po se d was th e p res cri be d m in im um inth e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge of 4 6 t o 5 7 m on th s, an d we o rd in ari ly exp ectth ata Gui de li ne se nt en ce i s re as on ab le . See Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Men do za’s arg um en t tha t h e is no t a r is k t o re en te r th e Uni te d S tate s i s unpe rs ua si ve . Thathe ha s a f arm an d was earn in g ali vi ng inMex ic o d idno t d et er hi m fro m th e ree nt ry

for whi chhe pl ead edgu il ty in thi s m at te r. Men do za p ro vi de s no ev id en ce tha t h e is les s l ik el y no w to att em

ptto il le ga ll y

return t o t he Uni te d St at es th enhe was wh enhe vi ol at edth e la w in20 09 . The d is tri ctjud ge rig ht ly co nc lu de d t ha t d et erre nc e was a m ean in gf ul co ns id erat io n i n s pi te of M en do za’s es tabl is he d l ife inMex ic o. Men do za cl ai m s tha t thi s s en te nc e was di sp ro po rti on al ly hars h, fa r 3ex ceed in g t he av erag e se nt en ce g iv enforanoff en se un de r § 3 55 3( a). Howe ve r, Men do za ci te s o nl y

ge ne ral sen te nc in g s ta ti st ic s. He fai ls to id en ti fy a si ng le si mil arl y si tu at edde fen da nt , parti cu la rly on e who ha d b eende po rte d fo r co m m it ti ng a se rio us dru g- rel at edoff en se , who rece iv eda sh orte r se nt en ce. Thu s, Men do za fa il s t o s ho w an unwa rran te d d is pa rit y th atren de rs hi s s en te nc e un reas on ab le . Becaus e Me nd oz a’s se nt en ce i s s up po rte d b y th e rec or d a ndth e 2 § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, the di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y sen te nc in g Men do za t o 4 6 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Acco rd in gl y , Men do za’s s en te nc e is affi rm ed . AFFIRMED. 3

Mendoza’s re maining a

rguments demand little discussion. He claims that the 2 district court should have taken note of the fa ct that he did not try to ree nter be tween 2005 a nd 2009. Howeve r, Mendoza wa s on probation duringthis period of time, likely deter ringhim from violating § 1326( a). Mendoza also claims that the district cour t failed to take into account the f act that he committed no new crime. He doe s not ex plain why this factor is not ade quately acc ounted for by the Guidelines, nor doe s he off er a ny authority for this as a f

actor that the district court should have c onsidered.

Appellant’s r equest for

oral a rgument is denied as moot. 3 4