[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10933 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JAN 21, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cr-00004-DHB-WLB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RUBEN CAMPOS-ARROLLO,
llllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(January 21, 2011)
Before CARNES, MARCUS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ruben Campos-Arrollo appeals his 120-month sentence, imposed after he
pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or
more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On appeal, Campos-Arrollo
argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the consideration
of his cooperation, family issues, remorse, and lack of a criminal history should
have led the court to sentence him to less than 120 months’ imprisonment.
We review the reasonableness of a district court’s sentence under the
deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41,
128 S.Ct. 586, 591, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The district court is required to
impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with
the purposes” listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), including the need to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment
for the offense, deter criminal conduct, protect the public from the defendant’s
future criminal conduct, and provide the defendant with needed educational or
vocational training or medical care. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). In imposing a
particular sentence, the court must also consider the nature and circumstances of
the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences
available, the applicable guideline range, the pertinent policy statements of the
Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and
the need to provide restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
2
The party challenging the sentence has the burden of establishing that the
sentence was unreasonable. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.
2005). Further, “when the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory
Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one.”
Id. We will not overturn a sentence unless 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).
Campos-Arrollo has not identified why his sentence was unreasonable in
light of the record and § 3553(a) factors. His sentence was within the guidelines
range and thus one we would ordinarily expect to be reasonable. Campos-Arrollo
does not show that the court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the §
3553(a) factors. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3