Opinion ID: 3062894
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: reasonableness of the term of imprisonment

Text: Mena-Valenzuela claims the district court failed to properly consider his personal characteristics and circumstances in imposing a sentence of 52 months’ imprisonment. He claims his impoverished background and his desire to support his dependents living in Mexico entitled him to a downward variance in sentence. Mena-Valenzuela further contends, for the first time on appeal, the district court erred in failing to consider his criminal history was subject to double-counting under the Sentencing Guidelines. We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 592 (2007). The burden of 2 establishing unreasonableness lies with the party challenging the sentence. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). When reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, we evaluate whether the sentence imposed by the district court fails to achieve the purposes of sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. Reasonableness review is deferential, and if a district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, “we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one.” Id. “The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007). A sentencing judge is not required to expressly discuss each of the § 3553(a) before imposing sentence. United States v. Ortiz-Delgado, 451 F.3d 752, 758 (11th Cir. 2006). Rather, “an acknowledgment by the district court that it has considered the defendant’s arguments and [the statutory factors] is sufficient under Booker.” Talley, 431 F.3d at 786. Mena-Valenzuela’s mid-Guidelines-rage sentence is reasonable. Prior to imposing the sentence, the court properly considered the arguments presented by the parties, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, and the findings in the PSI informing the statutory factors. Additionally, Mena-Valenzuela’s double-counting 3 argument is foreclosed by precedent, see United States v. Adeleke, 968 F.2d 1159, 1161 (11th Cir. 1992) (upholding double counting under § 2L1.2(b)(1)). Because Mena-Valenzuela has not shown it incarceration period is unreasonable, we affirm the imposed sentence.