[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-12726 FEBRUARY 4, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cr-00004-SCB-MAP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARNULFO ANTONIO GUZMAN-ALAS,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 4, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Arnulfo Antonio Guzman-Alas appeals his 46-month sentence imposed
after pleading guilty to illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1326(a) & (b)(2). Pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, Guzman-Alas’s
offense level was 21 and criminal history category was III, resulting in a guideline
range of 46 to 57 months. See §§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i), 3E1.1(a) & (b) (2010).
Guzman-Alas argues that his within-guideline sentence is procedurally and
substantively unreasonable. After thorough review, we affirm.
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
(2007). We must first “ensure that the district court committed no significant
procedural error . . . [and] then consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence imposed.” United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008).
Procedural errors include: “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
§ 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing
to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128
S. Ct. at 597). We look to the § 3553(a) factors to guide our substantive
2
reasonableness review. United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11th
Cir. 2005).
I.
Guzman-Alas first argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable
because the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons for imposing his
46-month sentence. “[T]he party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of
establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both th[e] record and
the factors in section 3553(a).” United States v. Campbell, 491 F.3d 1306, 1313
(11th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.
2005)). When the district court imposes a sentence within the guideline range
“doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007). The district court need only
make “an acknowledgment . . . that it has considered the defendant’s arguments
and the factors in section 3553(a).” Talley, 431 F.3d at 786. “[N]othing . . .
requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered
each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors.” United
States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005).
3
The district court committed no procedural error in imposing Guzman-
Alas’s sentence. At the beginning of Guzman-Alas’s sentencing hearing, the
district court explained the guideline calculation. Guzman-Alas conceded at
sentencing that the guideline range the district court applied was correct.
Guzman-Alas acknowledges that the district court stated that it had considered
each of the § 3553(a) factors. Moreover, the district court explained that it was
imposing Guzman-Alas’s sentence to deter him from future criminal conduct and
to protect the public. The district court’s explanation was sufficient.
II.
Guzman-Alas next argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the circumstances of his case warrant less severe punishment in light of
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. When reviewing a sentence for substantive
reasonableness, we examine the totality of the circumstances and determine
whether the sentence achieves the sentencing goals stated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
United States v. Culver, 598 F.3d 740, 753 (11th Cir. 2010); Pugh, 515 F.3d at
1191. We ordinarily expect a sentence within the guidelines range to be
reasonable. Talley, 431 F.3d at 788. Further, it is within the district court’s
discretion to weigh the § 3553(a) factors, and “[w]e will not substitute our
4
judgment in weighing the relevant [statutory] factors.” United States v. Amedeo,
487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Guzman-Alas’s sentence is substantively reasonable. His sentence is at the
bottom of the guideline range. See Talley, 431 F.3d at 788. It is also well below
the twenty-year statutory maximum sentence for illegal reentry. See 8 U.S.C. §
1326(b)(2). It was within the district court’s discretion to weigh the § 3553(a)
factors, in light of Guzman-Alas’s criminal history, and select a sentence at the
bottom of the guideline range. See Amedeo, 487 F.3d at 832.
AFFIRMED.
5