Case: 13-12750 Date Filed: 01/09/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12750
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-14010-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OSNEL JENICE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 9, 2014)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-12750 Date Filed: 01/09/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Osnel Jenice appeals his sentence of 41 months of imprisonment following
his plea of guilty to reentering the United States unlawfully after deportation. See
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Jenice argues that his sentence is procedurally
unreasonable because the district court failed to discuss any of the specific
statutory sentencing factors and misstated that it was considering the factors “as set
forth in Title 18 United States Code, Section 3554(a).” We affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential standard for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627, 636 (11th Cir.
2013). “A sentence may be procedurally unreasonable if the district court
improperly calculates the Guidelines range, treats the Guidelines as mandatory
rather than advisory, fails to consider the appropriate statutory factors, selects a
sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.” United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 2008). The
government argues that we should review only for plain error because Jenice did
not object to his sentence, but we need not address that argument because, whether
we review for abuse of discretion or for plain error, our decision is the same.
The district court committed no reversible error. The district court stated
that it “considered the statements of all parties, the presentence investigation report
which contains the advisory guidelines and the statutory factors. . . .” That
statement established that the district court considered the nature and
2
Case: 13-12750 Date Filed: 01/09/2014 Page: 3 of 3
circumstances of Jenice’s offense, his criminal history, the need for deterrence, and
the change in his circumstances from a life “trouble[d] with drugs” to a life
devoted to his church and his community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); see also
United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936, 944 (11th Cir. 2007). A slip of the tongue
by the district court that it considered section 3554, which has no subsection (a)
and concerns orders of forfeiture, instead of section 3553(a), which concerns the
factors to be considered in imposing a sentence, does not make Jenice’s sentence
procedurally unreasonable. The district court correctly determined that Jenice had
an advisory guidelines range of 41 to 51 months of imprisonment, and Jenice
requested and received “a sentence at the low end” of that range. As Jenice
admitted at his sentencing hearing, a sentence of 41 months of imprisonment is
“more than adequate to serve the purposes of 3553.”
We AFFIRM Jenice’s sentence.
3