[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
January 4, 2010
No. 09-12439 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar ACTING CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-00480-CR-2-IPJ-PWG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ANTHONY BAILEY,
a.k.a. Jimmy Macdougle,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(January 4, 2010)
Before BLACK, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Anthony Bailey appeals his 46-month sentence, imposed within the
applicable guideline range, after pleading guilty to alien reentry into the United
States without consent, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). On appeal,
Bailey contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Specifically, he argues
his sentence is longer than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals of
§ 3553(a). He asserts a reasonable sentence would have either given him credit for
27 months served in state custody during prosecution on a state charge, or
acknowledged the time served through a downward departure.
We examine the reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse of discretion
standard. United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255, 1273 n.25 (11th Cir. 2008). The
standard is deferential, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall
v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591, 597 (2007). The party challenging the
sentence carries the burden of establishing unreasonableness. United States v.
Flores, 572 F.3d 1254, 1270 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 568 (2009).
Pursuant to § 3553(a), the sentencing court shall impose a sentence
“sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to comply with the purposes of
sentencing listed in § 3553(a)(2). 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The sentencing court
must also consider the § 3553(a) factors in fashioning a particular sentence. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7). A sentence is substantively unreasonable “if it does
2
not achieve the purposes of sentencing stated in § 3553(a).” United States v. Pugh,
515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). We have held “when
the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, we
ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one.” United States v. Talley,
431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). A sentencing judge “should set forth enough
to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has
a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” United
States v. Livesay, 525 F.3d 1081, 1090 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted).
The record demonstrates Bailey has not met his burden to demonstrate his
sentence was greater than necessary to achieve the goals listed in § 3553(a). Bailey
cites no authority to support the proposition that a reasonable sentence compels a
federal court, imposing a federal sentence, to credit a defendant with time served
while in state custody during the course of a state prosecution. He has thus failed
to satisfy his burden of establishing his guideline sentence was unreasonable.
Flores, 572 F.3d at 1270. Moreover, the district court considered Bailey’s
argument and provided a reasoned basis for exercising its authority. Livesay, 525
F.3d at 1090. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining
to impose a sentence below the guideline range.
AFFIRMED.
3