United States v. Ismael Jovanny Guzman

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 17, 2007
No. 06-13818 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-20118-CR-ASG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ISMAEL JOVANNY GUZMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(October 17, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ismael Guzman appeals his sentence of 600 months of imprisonment after
pleading guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit robbery and two counts of
robbery in violation of the Hobbs Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Guzman argues
that the district court erred when it refused to grant a downward departure, see
United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2A1.1 cmt. n.2(B) (Nov. 2005), and
imposed an unreasonable sentence. We affirm.
Guzman argues that the district court wrongly refused to grant a downward
departure. We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary refusal of a district
court to grant a downward departure unless the district court erroneously believed
that it was without authority to depart from the advisory Guidelines range. United
States v. Norris, 452 F.3d 1275, 1282 (11th Cir. 2006). The extensive analysis
provided by the district court in reaching its decision establishes that the district
court understood its authority to depart downward, but declined to exercise that
authority. We are without jurisdiction to review that decision.
Guzman also argues that his sentence is unreasonable. He argues that the
district court violated the “concept of advisory guidelines” by requiring defense
counsel to explain why the characteristics of the defendant warranted a sentence
below the Guidelines range. Guzman also contends that his sentence, which is 13
years longer than the sentence of his co-defendant, failed to achieve the goal of
avoiding sentencing disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). We disagree.
2
“Review for reasonableness is deferential.” United States v. Talley, 431
F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). “[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).” Id. “When we review a sentence for
reasonableness, we do not, as the district court did, determine the exact sentence to
be imposed.” Id. “We must evaluate whether the sentence imposed by the district
court fails to achieve the purposes of sentencing as stated in section 3553(a).” Id.
“[W]hen the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines
range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one.” Id.
Guzman’s sentence of 600 months of imprisonment was reasonable. The
sentence was within the advisory Guidelines range and below the statutory
maximum sentence. Both the sentencing order and the transcript of the sentencing
hearing establish that the district court sentenced Guzman, as the “direct
perpetrator” of a death, after careful consideration of Guzman’s arguments in favor
of mitigation, the Guidelines, and the sentencing factors of section 3553(a).
Guzman’s sentence is
AFFIRMED.
3