[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10133 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar AUGUST 23, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 2:09-cr-00032-WCO-SSC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSE PARAMO-MORALES,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(August 23, 2010)
Before BLACK, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Paramo-Morales appeals his 41-month sentence imposed following his
guilty plea to a single count of illegally reentering the United States after being
removed from the country following a conviction for committing an aggravated
felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). On appeal, Paramo-Morales
argues that the sentence was substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) because his criminal history category over-represented the seriousness
of his criminal record and other factors mitigated in his favor.
We review the sentence imposed, whether inside or outside of the advisory
Guidelines range, for reasonableness, using an abuse of discretion standard. Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Unreasonableness
may be procedural or substantive. United States v. Hunt, 459 F.3d 1180, 1182 n.3
(11th Cir. 2006). In this appeal, Paramo-Morales challenges only the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence. Thus, any procedural challenge to his sentence
has been abandoned. See United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344
(11th Cir. 1998) (issue not pursued on appeal deemed abandoned).
Substantively, the sentence must be sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to reflect the purposes set forth in § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The
factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) are:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness
of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense; (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need
to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with
2
needed educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the
kinds of sentences available; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8)
pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the
need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to
provide restitution to victims.
United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)). “The weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter
committed to the sound discretion of the district court,” and this Court “will not
substitute [its] judgment in weighing the relevant factors.” United States v.
Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We will remand for resentencing only “if we are 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.” United States v. Pugh, 515
F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
At the sentencing hearing, the district court heard and acknowledged
Paramo-Morales’ argument that his criminal history score overstated his prior
criminal history because most of his prior offenses were for DUI or otherwise
alcohol related, and other arguments he offered in mitigation. The district court
then concluded that although Paramo-Morales’ criminal record did not contain the
most serious types of offenses, his lengthy criminal history demonstrated that he
3
had no respect for and refused to abide by the law. In this case, we are not left
with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error
of judgment when it concluded that, even in light of his other arguments offered in
mitigation, Paramo-Morales’ lack of respect for the law dictated a sentence at the
high end of the advisory guidelines range. This sentence is not outside the range
of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case. Upon review of the
record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4