Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben PEREZ-RAMIREZ, a.k.a. Noe Flores-Zavala, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-30
Citations: 495 F. App'x 20
Docket Number: No. 12-11712
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben PEREZ-RAMIREZ, a.k.a. Noe Flores-Zavala, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 495
Pages: 20–21

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben PEREZ-RAMIREZ, a.k.a. Noe Flores-Zavala, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-11712
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Oct. 30, 2012.
Peggy Morris Ronca, David L. Haas, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, Robert E. O’Neill, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ryan Thomas Truskoski, Attorney at Law, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Ruben Perez-Ramirez, McRae, GA, pro se.
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
On March 21, 2012, appellant Ruben Perez-Ramirez, having pled guilty to reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), was sentenced by the District Court to a prison term of 18 months — an upward variance from the Guidelines sentence range of 0 to 6 months but well below the statutory maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). He appeals his sentence, arguing that the District Court procedurally erred in imposing his sentence and in fading to provide a statement of reasons for the variance. We find no error and accordingly affirm.
We find no procedural error in this case. As required by Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), the District Court properly adopted the Guidelines sentence range set out in the presentence report. Appellant, who was represented by counsel, voiced no objection to that sentence range or the report's recitation of the facts underpinning it. Nor did appellant object to the sentence he received after the District Court imposed it.
As for stating the reasons for the sentence, the District Court made it clear that it was imposing an 18 months' period of incarceration because appellant had entered the United States illegally 14 times, and a sentence above the Guidelines sentence range was required to promote respect for law and to deter appellant from illegally entering this country again. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), (C).
AFFIRMED.
. Appellant was given credit for time served between his detention on November 9, 2011, and the imposition of sentence. Appellant is a Mexican citizen. He had entered the United States illegally 14 times. His first removal occurred in 2003, after he was convicted of a misdemeanor. He was arrested for the instant offense on November 9, 2011, after the police stopped the car in which he and 10 others were riding.