United States v. Kaunda Omar Jackson

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-12371 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 24, 2008
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 08-20031-CR-FAM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KAUNDA OMAR JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(December 24, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kaunda Omar Jackson appeals his sentence of 48 months of imprisonment
for illegal reentry after deportation. 18 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Jackson argues
for the first time on appeal that the application of section 2L1.2 is unreasonable
and constitutes double counting. Jackson also argues that his sentence is
unreasonable. We affirm.
Objections that are not raised in the district court are reviewed for plain
error. United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825, 831 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
We review the reasonableness of a criminal sentence for an abuse of discretion.
Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594, 596–97 (2007). “[T]he party who
challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is
unreasonable in the light of both [the] record and the factors in section 3553(a).”
United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
The district court did not plainly err in applying section 2L1.2 of the
Sentencing Guidelines. The district court correctly calculated the guideline range
and considered that range as one of several factors regarding Jackson’s sentence.
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 264, 125 S. Ct. 738, 767 (2005); United
States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235, 1248 (11th Cir. 2008). The application of
section 2L1.2 also is not impermissible double counting because the use of a prior
felony in the criminal history section and section 2L1.2 serve the separate purposes
of punishing recidivism and deterring aliens from reentry. United States v.
2
Adeleke, 968 F.2d 1159, 1161 (11th Cir. 1992).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a sentence within
the guideline range. Although Jackson complains that the court failed to consider
that he reentered the United States to join his family and he regretted his crime, the
court stated that it had considered those facts. The court did not abuse its
discretion when it concluded that a sentence of 48 months of imprisonment served
the statutory purposes of deterrence and adequate punishment. See 28 U.S.C. §
3553(a); Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Jackson’s sentence is
reasonable.
Jackson’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
3