Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Salvador HERNANDEZ-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-15
Citations: 228 F. App'x 930
Docket Number: No. 06-15012
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Salvador HERNANDEZ-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 228
Pages: 930–930

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel Salvador HERNANDEZ-GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-15012
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 15, 2007.
Miguel Caridad, Kathleen M. Williams, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Salvador Hernandez-Gomez appeals as unreasonable his sentence of 46 months of imprisonment for illegal reentry into the United States. The advisory guidelines range was 46-57 months of imprisonment and the statutory maximum was ten years of imprisonment. Hernandez-Gomez argues that the district court expressed his disagreement with the guidelines range and imposed an unreasonable sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We affirm.
"Review for reasonableness is deferential." United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.2005). "[T]he party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both that record and the factors in section 3553(a)." Id. "When we review a sentence for reasonableness, we do not, as the district court did, determine the exact sentence to be imposed." Id. "We must evaluate whether the sentence imposed by the district court fails to achieve the purposes of sentencing as stated in section 3553(a)." Id. "[W]hen the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one." Id.
The district court did not err. The district court correctly recognized that its general disagreement with the Sentencing Guidelines was not a legitimate reason to vary from the Guidelines. See United States v. Williams, 456 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir.2006), petition for cert. filed, No. 06-7352 (U.S. Oct. 19, 2006). The district court considered the factors in section 3553(a) and sentenced Hernandez-Gomez well below the statutory maximum and at the low end of the guidelines range. That sentence is not unreasonable.
Hernandez-Gomez's sentence is
AFFIRMED.