Opinion ID: 69478
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Explanation of Reasons

Text: “The question of whether a district court complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1) is reviewed de novo, even if the defendant did not object below.” United States v. Bonilla, 463 F.3d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 2006). Pursuant to § 3553(c), the district court must “state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence.” If the sentence is within the guideline range, and that range exceeds 24 months, the court must describe “the reason for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the range.” 18 U.S.C. 8 § 3553(c)(1). A sentencing court is not required to “incant the specific language used in the guidelines” or “articulate its consideration of each individual § 3553(a) factor,” so long as the record reflects the court’s consideration of many of those factors. Bonilla, 463 F.3d at 1182. When determining whether a sentencing court’s statement of reasons satisfies § 3553(c)(1), we are not limited to reviewing the court’s closing remarks. United States v. Parrado, 911 F.2d 1567, 1573 (11th Cir. 1990). Rather, we have reviewed the entire sentencing hearing transcript and have based our determination on “what transpired, taken together with the court’s closing remarks . . . .” Id. In Bonilla, the district court allowed the parties to make arguments regarding the relevant § 3553(a) factors, heard the defendant’s statement of remorse, and, in imposing a sentence at the low end of the guidelines range, stated its belief that the sentence complied with the Guidelines and accounted for the § 3553 factors. 463 F.3d at 1181. We concluded that the district court had complied with § 3553(c)(1) because it was obvious that the court had considered many of the § 3553(a) factors. Id. at 1182. Here, the district court invited the parties to discuss the relevant § 3553(a) factors, provided the defendant with an opportunity to speak on his own behalf, 9 noted that the offense involved a large amount of high-quality cocaine, indicated that it had considered the case “on its own facts” and Martinez-Castillo “on his . . . own merits,” and discussed the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. Thus, it is clear from the record that the court considered many of the § 3553(a) factors before imposing the sentences, and it therefore complied with § 3553(c)(1). Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm the defendants’ sentences. AFFIRMED.1 1 The Government’s motion to strike Telles-Milton’s addendum to his reply brief is GRANTED. 10