[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 15, 2005
No. 05-10580 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00368-CR-T-26-TGW
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALEJANDRO CRUZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(December 15, 2005)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Alejandro Cruz appeals his 168-month sentence for possession
with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 1903(a)
and (g), 18 U.S.C. § 2, and 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii). On appeal, Cruz argues
that the district court’s imposition of a 168-month prison sentence was
unreasonable, in light of sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and in light of
the holding in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L. Ed. 2d
621 (2005). According to Cruz, post-Booker, federal district courts must consider
the factors provided in § 3553(a), starting with the minimum sentence permissible,
and only adding to the sentence so as to comply with the punitive, protective, and
rehabilitative purposes of § 3553(a). Cruz suggests that reasonable people would
agree that 140 months is enough incarceration to reflect the seriousness of the
crime while also providing Cruz with some education and training.
Under Booker, we review a defendant’s ultimate sentence for
“unreasonableness.” 543 U.S. at ___, 125 S. Ct. at 765. Specifically, the United
States Supreme Court has directed sentencing courts to consider the following
factors in imposing sentences under the advisory Guidelines’s scheme:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed
– (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for
the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford
adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public
from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant
2
with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other
correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds of
sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range
established . . . [from the Guidelines]; and (5) any pertinent policy
statement . . . issued by the Sentencing Commission . . . .
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 765-66.
We have held that, “nothing in Booker or elsewhere 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, No. 05-
11843, ___ F.3d ___ (11th Cir. Sept. 27, 2005). The § 3553(a) factors serve as
guides for the district and appellate courts in determining whether a sentence is
reasonable. United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11th Cir. 2005).
However, we have declined to hold sentences within the Guidelines’s range per se
reasonable. Id.
In this case, the record reflects that the district court consulted the
Guidelines and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because we conclude
that Cruz’s ultimate sentence was reasonable in light of Booker, 543 U.S. __, 125
S. Ct. 738, and § 3553, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3