FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 24, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 29 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :1 0- cr-0 00 28 -BAE-GRS- 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 Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, vers us LARRY DAVID JOHNSON, a.k .a. Pie , 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 urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 24 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Larry Dav idJo hn so n app eal s h is 84 -m on th sen te nc e, im po se d abo ve th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , aft er h e p le d g ui lt y to on e co un t o f di st rib ut io n o f co cai ne ba se , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . On ap pe al , Jo hn so n a rg ue s th atin ap pl y in g 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)’s s en te nc in g fa ct or s, the di st ric t co urt im pr op erl y rel ie d o n fa ct s, s uc h a s J oh ns on ’s cri m in al hi st ory , th atth e d is tri ct co urt h adalr ead y

co ns id eredinde te rm in in g J oh ns on ’s gu id el in e ran ge . Jo hn so n co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s i m pr op er re li an ce o n s uc h fa ct s re su lt edinan un reas on ab le up wardva ria nc e.

“ To b e uph el d o n app eal , a se nt en ce m us t b e b ot h p ro cedur al ly and subs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le .” Uni te d Sta te s v. Ro dr ig ue z , 62 8 F .3d12 58 , 12 64 (11 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e u nd er a d efer en ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1 (2 00 7) . “ A di st ric t co urt ab us es it s d is cret io n wh enit(1) fai ls to affo rd co ns id erat io n t o re le va ntfact or s t ha t wer e due si gn ifi can t wei gh t, (2 ) gi ve s si gn ifi can t wei gh t t o a n i m pr op er o r irrel ev an t fa ct or , or (3 ) co m m it s a c le ar erro r of jud gm en t i n c on si de rin g t he pro pe r fact or s.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d 11 60 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Whi le Jo hn so n d oe s n otcle arl y di st in gu is h b et ween pro cedur al an d subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s, h e ap pe ars to arg ue th athi s s en te nc e is 2(1 ) pr oc edur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y co ns id ered fact s tha t h adalr ead y

be enacco un te d fo r in th e g ui de li ne ran ge cal cu la ti on ; an d (2 ) subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le be cau se no ne of § 35 53 (a)’s s en te nc in g fa ct or s wou ldha ve jus ti fie d the up wardva ria nc e h adth e d is tri ctco urt n otco m m it te d t he pr oc edur al erro r of

co ns id eri ng su ch im

pr op er fa ct s. Fo recl os in g J oh ns on ’s arg um en ts , th is Co urt h as rep eat ed ly “ he ldth ata di st ric t co urt ca n re ly on fa ct or s i n i m po si ng a va ria nc e th atitha d a lre ady co ns id eredin im

po si ng anen ha nc em en t.” Rod ri gu ez , 62 8 F .3dat 1 26 4; Uni te d St at es v. Amede o , 48 7 F .3d82 3, 8 33 -3 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e 8 4- m on th sen te nc e. AFFIRMED.

3