[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-14180 MAY 23, 2011
JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 7:10-cr-00002-WLS-TQL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DOROTEO VARGAS-HUERTA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(May 23, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Doroteo Vargas-Huerta appeals his 120-month above-Guidelines sentence,
imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of reentry of a deported alien, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2), (b)(2). He challenges the reasonableness of his
sentence, which we review under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
Vargas-Huerta argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable
because the district court did not offer an adequate explanation for his sentence.
We disagree—here, the court’s explanation of its reasons for varying upward was
sufficiently justified to support the degree of the variance. See United States v.
Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1186–87 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc), cert. denied, 2011 WL
1225730 (2011). It expressly stated that it considered the advisory Sentencing
Guidelines and each of the § 3553(a) factors in determining Vargas-Huerta’s
sentence, which was sufficient to demonstrate that it in fact did so. See United
States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The court
discussed the need to promote respect for the law and to punish for repeated
violations of the law, as well as Vargas-Huerta’s history and characteristics,
referencing both his criminal history and his family issues. In its “Statement of
Reasons,” the district court set forth specific justifications for the above-
Guidelines sentence, based upon the § 3553(a) factors. Finally, the district court
considered Vargas-Huerta’s mitigation arguments. The district court properly
calculated the Guidelines range, treated the Guidelines as advisory, and based the
2
sentence on the undisputed facts set forth in the presentence investigation report,
and as a result, Vargas-Huerta’s sentence was procedurally reasonable.
Vargas-Huerta’s sentence was also substantively reasonable. His sentence
was appropriate to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, provide
adequate deterrence, and protect the public from further crimes. See 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(2)(A)-(C). Moreover, his sentence was well below the 20-year statutory
maximum penalty. See United States v. Gonzales, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir.
2008) (per curiam) (holding that the sentence was reasonable in part because it
was well below the statutory maximum). Although Vargas-Huerta argues that his
family circumstances were a mitigating factor, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in giving other factors, including his criminal history, more weight. See
United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). In
the end, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a sentence
above the Guidelines range was necessary to comply with the purposes of
§ 3553(a). Accordingly, we affirm the sentence as reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
3