Case: 17-14581 Date Filed: 06/13/2018 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-14581
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cr-80047-DTKH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ADRIAN ARRELLANO GUAJARDO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 17-14582
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cr-60301-DTKH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Case: 17-14581 Date Filed: 06/13/2018 Page: 2 of 5
versus
ADRIAN ARRELLANO GUAJARDO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 13, 2018)
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Adrian Arrellano Guajardo appeals his 168-month concurrent sentences for
two counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and a mixture
containing methamphetamine. He asserts that his sentences are substantively
unreasonable because the district court disregarded certain mitigating
factors―such as his imminent deportation order following imprisonment, his
strong family ties to the United States, and his minor criminal history―when it
denied his request for a downward variance. After careful review, we affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). If the
sentence is procedurally sound, then we consider the sentence’s substantive
reasonableness, taking into consideration the extent of any variance from the
2
Case: 17-14581 Date Filed: 06/13/2018 Page: 3 of 5
guideline range. Id. at 51. We will reverse only if “left with the definite and firm
conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing
the [18 U.S.C.] § 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.
Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
A district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to consider relevant
factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives an improper or irrelevant factor
significant weight, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment by balancing the
proper factors unreasonably. Id. at 1189. The party seeking to prove the sentence
unreasonable bears the burden of proof. Id. at 1191 n.16. Where a sentence is
consistent with the guidelines’ application of the § 3553(a) factors, it is probable
that the sentence is reasonable. Id. at 1185.
The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to comply with the purposes” listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), including
the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law,
provide just punishment, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from the
defendant’s future criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Importantly, the
district court has the discretion to weigh the § 3553(a) factors and may “attach
great weight to one factor over others.” United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888,
892 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, the district court is
3
Case: 17-14581 Date Filed: 06/13/2018 Page: 4 of 5
not required to state that it has considered each factor enumerated in § 3553(a);
rather, an acknowledgement that it has considered the § 3553(a) factors will
suffice. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed
Guajardo’s concurrent 168-month sentences. The district court provided a
comprehensive analysis of the § 3553(a) factors that it used to fashion Guajardo’s
sentences, expressly relying on the nature and circumstances of the offense,
Guajardo’s history and characteristics, and the need for both specific and general
deterrence. The record demonstrates that the district court considered the impact
of Guajardo’s imprisonment and imminent deportation order on him and his
family, as well as his minor criminal history. Nevertheless, the court determined
that a downward variance was not appropriate in light of the quantity of drugs sold,
the purity content of the drugs, the dollar amount of the sale, and the dangerous
and addictive nature of methamphetamines. The district court had the discretion to
weigh these factors, and Guajardo has not shown that it made a clear error of
judgment in concluding that these within-guidelines sentences were warranted after
weighing the mitigating factors against the aggravating factors. See United States
v. Saac, 632 F.3d 1203, 1214–15 (11th Cir. 2011); Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189. And
importantly, Guajardo’s sentences were at the low end of the guideline range―a
4
Case: 17-14581 Date Filed: 06/13/2018 Page: 5 of 5
further indication that his sentences are not substantively unreasonable. See Irey,
612 F.3d at 1185.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Guajardo’s 168-month concurrent
sentences are not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
5