United States v. Allen George Ramdatt , 574 F. App'x 877 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-15007 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-15007
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-14008-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALLEN RAMDATT,
a.k.a. Kenneth Molloy,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 31, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-15007 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Allen Ramdatt, having pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States
by a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), appeals his
sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, imposed to run consecutively to an
undischarged state sentence. Ramdatt argues his sentence is procedurally
unreasonable. Upon review, 1 we reject Ramdatt’s argument and affirm his
sentence.
Ramdatt argues his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the
district court failed to explain its reasons for imposing it consecutively to the state
sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (describing “fail[ure]
to adequately explain the chosen sentence” as a “significant procedural error”).
This argument is without merit because the district court expressly stated that it
had “considered the statements of all parties, the presentence report, which
contains the advisory guidelines, and the statutory factors as set forth in [18 U.S.C.
§] 3553(a).” Ramdatt rejects this explanation as “a simple pro forma
acknowledgement of § 3553(a),” but we approved a materially identical statement
in United States v. Alfaro-Moncada. 607 F.3d 720, 735 (11th Cir. 2010); see also
United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[N]othing in Booker
or elsewhere requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly
1
We review the reasonableness of a sentence, including whether it is imposed
consecutive to or concurrent with another sentence, for abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Bonilla, 579 F.3d 1233, 1244-45 (11th Cir. 2009). “The party challenging the sentence bears the
burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable.” United States v. Bane, 720 F.3d 818,
824 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
Case: 13-15007 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 3 of 3
considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the § 3553(a)
factors.”). The district court’s explanation of the sentence it imposed was
sufficient to show that it had “considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a
reasoned basis for [its] own legal decisionmaking authority,” and it is therefore
sufficient for our review. United States v. Livesay, 525 F.3d 1081, 1090 (11th Cir.
2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is particularly true given that the
district court’s decision was consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines’ preference
for consecutive terms of imprisonment for sentences imposed at different times.
See United States v. Ballard, 6 F.3d 1502, 1506 (11th Cir. 1993) (recognizing this
preference); see also Livesay, 525 F.3d at 1090 (“Generally, when sentencing
within the advisory Guidelines range, the district court is not required to give a
lengthy explanation for its sentence if the case is typical of those contemplated by
the Sentencing Commission.”). Neither of Ramdatt’s arguments for leniency
(specifically, that he desired to return to his family and that it would cost the
United States more to imprison him for a longer time) necessitated further
discussion by the district court.
Accordingly, we conclude that the sentence the district court imposed was
not procedurally unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
3