United States v. Angella Joan Cameron ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 30, 2008
No. 07-15241
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-60135-CR-WPD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANGELLA JOAN CAMERON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 30, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Angella Cameron pled guilty to being found in the United States after
having been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a), (b)(2). The district court
thereafter sentenced her to a prison term of 40 months, one month below the
sentence range of 41-51 months prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines. She now
appeals her sentence, arguing that the sentence is unreasonable because the district
court failed adequately (1) to consider the nature and circumstances of her offense;
(2) the mitigating factor of duress; and (3) the sentencing factors set out in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) . We affirm.
We determine the reasonableness of a defendant’s sentence under the abuse
of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169
L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). A district court must impose a sentence that is both
procedurally and substantively reasonable. Id. A sentence may be procedurally
unreasonable if, for example, the district court improperly calculates the Guidelines
sentence range, treats the Guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory, fails to
consider the appropriate § 3553(a) factors, bases the sentence on clearly erroneous
facts, or fails adequately to explain its reason(s) for the sentence imposed. 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. __, 127 S.Ct.
2456, 2468, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
2
Once we conclude that the district court made no procedural errors, we then
consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Id. Such review
entails determining whether the sentence is supported by the § 3553(a) factors. Id,
552 U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. at 600. The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,
and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the
need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed
educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences
available; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of
the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities;
and (10) the need to provide restitution to victims. Id. at 786; (citing 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)).
Cameron does not dispute that the district court imposed a procedurally
reasonable sentence, and she has not established that her sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and imposed a
departure sentence slightly below the sentence range. Because the § 3553(a)
factors support the sentence imposed by the district court, and the sentence is not
greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing set forth in § 3553 (a)(1),
3
we are bound not to disturb it.
AFFIRMED.
4