United States v. Gabino Gonzalez-Santos ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 15, 2007
No. 07-12123 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00517-CR-T-17-TGW
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GABINO GONZALEZ-SANTOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(November 15, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gabino Gonzalez-Santos appeals the twenty-four month prison sentence
imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to transporting illegal aliens, in
violation of 81 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (B)(i), and illegal entry into the
United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). Gonzalez-Santos contends
that his sentence was unreasonable in light of his unique circumstances and the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
We review the final sentence imposed by the district court for
reasonableness. United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1245 (11th Cir. 2005).
Our review for reasonableness is deferential. United States v. Thomas, 446 F.3d
1348, 1351 (11th Cir. 2006).
Unreasonableness may be procedural, such as occurs when the procedure the
district court used does not meet the requirements found in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), or it may be substantive in nature.
See United States v. Hunt, 459 F.3d 1180, 1182 n.3 (11th Cir. 2006). After
Booker, a district court, in determining a reasonable sentence, must consider the
correctly calculated advisory guideline range and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). United States v. Valnor, 451 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2006). After
correctly calculating the advisory guideline range, the district court may impose a
more severe or lenient sentence, so long as the resulting sentence is reasonable. Id.
at 750. “[T]here is a range of reasonable sentences from which the district court
2
may choose[,]” and the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in
light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors lies with the party challenging the
sentence. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
Here, the district court correctly calculated the guidelines range and stated
that it had considered the advisory nature of the guidelines and all of the § 3553(a)
factors. That consideration is sufficient under Booker. See id. The record also
shows that the court considered Gonzalez-Santos’ arguments and his individual
circumstances. Therefore, his sentence was not procedurally unreasonable.
As for substantive reasonableness, the record indicates that the district court
considered Gonzalez-Santos’ prior convictions, his conduct and profit-motive in
the charged offenses, and his special circumstances. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1)–(4). Because Gonzalez-Santos’ sentence was within the guidelines
range, we ordinarily would expect his sentence to be substantively reasonable. See
Talley, 431 F.3d at 788. Gonzalez-Santos has not overcome that expectation.
Finally, the district court noted Gonzalez-Santos’ four DUI convictions, and
stressed the need to protect the public and provide him with substance abuse
treatment. In light of his role in the present offenses and his history of DUI
convictions, we conclude that the sentence imposed by the district court, which
was at the low end of the guidelines range, was substantively reasonable.
3
AFFIRMED.
4