[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
U.S.
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 1, 2011
No. 10-13417 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20825-JLK-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OMALWIN VAZQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 1, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The only issue in this appeal is whether the concurrent prison sentences of
89 months appellant received for conspiracy and for attempt to possess with intent
to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, are substantively
unreasonable, even though they are at the bottom of the sentence range the
Sentencing Guidelines prescribe.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a “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 must impose a sentence
“sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to comply with the purposes of
sentencing, namely, 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 future criminal conduct by the defendant, and provide the
defendant with needed educational or vocational training or medical care.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). 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 disparity, and the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
“[W]hen the district court imposes a sentence within the . . . Guidelines
[sentence] range, we ordinarily . . . expect that choice to be a reasonable one.”
2
United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). The party challenging
the sentence must establish that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both
the record and the § 3553(a) factors. Id. “The weight to be accorded any given §
3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”
United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotations and
alteration omitted). We reverse only if “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. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160,
1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation omitted), petition for cert. filed, (U.S.
Nov. 24, 2010) (No. 10-727).
Our review of a sentence for “substantive unreasonableness involves
examining the totality of the circumstances, including an inquiry into whether the
statutory factors in § 3553(a) support the sentence in question.” United States v.
Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008). Id. at 1324. “A district court’s
sentence need not be the most appropriate one, it need only be a reasonable one.”
Irey, 612 F.3d at 1191.
Appellant fails to demonstrate that his sentences are substantively
unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors. The sentences are at
3
the lower end of the Guidelines sentence range of 87 to 108 months. Moreover,
they fall well below the statutory maximum penalty of 40 years’ imprisonment for
each count. See Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324 (concluding that the sentence was
reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum). The
sentences also meet the goals of § 3553(a). In particular, the district court
expressed concern regarding the “substantial” quantity of cocaine involved—four
kilograms at one point—and appellant’s previous conviction for drug trafficking.
In sum, because the sentences at issue are reasonable and supported by the §
3553(a) factors, they are
AFFIRMED.
4