United States v. Ivan Manotas-Karduss ( 2013 )

Case: 13-11750 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11750
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cr-60314-RSR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
IVAN MANOTAS-KARDUSS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 17, 2013)
Before WILSON, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-11750 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Ivan Manotas-Karduss appeals from his twenty-seven-month sentence,
imposed after he pled guilty to one count of unlawful re-entry by a previously
removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). On appeal, Manotas-
Karduss argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable
because the district court failed to consider his mitigating evidence.
I.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of
discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct.
586, 591 (2007). The party challenging a sentence bears the burden of showing
that the sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1189
(11th Cir. 2008). In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we conduct a two-
step inquiry. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597. First, we ensure that the
district court’s sentence was procedurally reasonable, meaning that the court
properly calculated the guideline range, treated the Guidelines as advisory,
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, did not select a sentence based on
clearly erroneous facts, and adequately explained the chosen sentence. Id.
Second, we examine whether the sentence was substantively reasonable in light of
the totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a) factors. Id. As the guideline
range is one of many factors to be considered under § 3553(a), we have declined to
hold that a within-range sentence is per se reasonable. United States v. Talley, 431
2
Case: 13-11750 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 3 of 3
F.3d 784, 786–87 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Nevertheless, “the use of the
Guidelines remains central to the sentencing process” and we have an “ordinary
expectation” that a sentence within the guideline range will be reasonable. Id. at
787–88. We reverse a sentence as substantively unreasonable only if “left with the
definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies
outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” Pugh,
515 F.3d at 1191 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Manotas-Karduss argues that his sentence was procedurally and
substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the
mitigating circumstances he presented. However, the district court expressly stated
that it “considered the statements of all the parties, [the] pre-sentence report[, and]
. . . the advisory Guidelines and statutory factors set forth [in] Title 18, United
States Code, 3553(a).” Moreover, based on the facts and circumstances of this
case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing
Manotas-Karduss to a term of imprisonment at the low end of the guideline range.
Therefore, the sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3