[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 25, 2010
No. 09-16369 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-00170-CR-T-17TBM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAMON DE LA CRUZ-ALEJO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 25, 2010)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ramon De La Cruz-Alejo appeals his 41-month sentence, which is at the
low end of the Guidelines range, for illegally reentering the United States after
having been deported for an aggravated felony conviction, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and
(b)(2). De La Cruz-Alejo asserts his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because his history and characteristics warrant a downward variance below the
Guidelines sentence.1 After review, we affirm De La Cruz-Alejo’s sentence.
We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). This review is
“deferential,” requiring us to determine “whether the sentence imposed by the
district court fails to achieve the purposes of sentencing as stated in section
3553(a).” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). There is a
“range of reasonable sentences from which the district court may choose,” and the
burden is on the defendant to show the sentence was unreasonable in light of the
record and the § 3553(a) factors. Id. While a sentence within the Guidelines range
is not per se reasonable, we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be reasonable. Id.
We have said “[t]he weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a
matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not
substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant factors.” United States v.
1
We review the final sentence imposed by a district court for reasonableness. United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 765 (2005).
2
Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation and quotation omitted). We
will remand for resentencing only if 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) (citation and quotation omitted).
The record shows the district court properly considered De La Cruz-Alejo’s
mitigating factors. The district court specifically addressed several of the
§ 3553(a) factors. The court commented on De La Cruz-Alejo’s need to support
his children and the fight with his brother, his criminal record in this country, and
the very long sentence he would face for a subsequent return to this country. These
comments are relevant to a consideration of De La Cruz-Alejo’s history and
characteristics, the need to protect the public, and deterrence. De La Cruz-Alejo
has failed to show the court committed a clear error in judgment in weighing the
§ 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence which lies inside the range of reasonable
sentences given the facts of his case. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3