[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
October 20, 2006
No. 06-10681 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-10019-CR-KMM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT FRANKLIN CACHO CASANOVA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(October 20, 2006)
Before BIRCH, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Franklin Cacho Casanova appeals his 324-month sentence, which
was imposed after he pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on a vessel subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(j). On
appeal, Casanova, who faced a Guidelines range of 324 to 405 months’
imprisonment, argues that his 324-month, low-end sentence was unreasonable
under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005), because the district court did not give enough weight to the fact that he
was 66 years old at the time of sentencing.
After Booker, we review the ultimate sentence imposed under an advisory
Guidelines scheme for reasonableness. United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174,
1178 (11th Cir. 2005). We do not review each individual decision made during the
sentencing process, however. United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1245
(11th Cir. 2005). Our reasonableness inquiry is guided by the factors set forth at
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 1246; Booker, 543 U.S. at 261. A sentence within the
Guidelines range is not per se reasonable, though “the party who challenges the
sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the
light of both [the] record and the factors in section 3553(a).” United States v.
Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
2
The district court must first accurately calculate the Guidelines range,1 and
then it “may impose a more severe or more lenient sentence” after considering the
§ 3553(a) factors. Crawford, 407 F.3d at 1179. These factors include the history
and characteristics of the defendant, the available sentences, the applicable
Guideline range, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the need for the
sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and
provide just punishment for the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We have clarified
that the district court is not obligated to specifically address and analyze on the
record every § 3553(a) factor. Rather, a statement that the court considered the
factors prior to imposing sentence is sufficient. United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d
1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005).
Here, imposition of Casanova’s sentence fully complied with the Supreme
Court’s ruling in Booker. The district court explicitly stated that it was applying
the Guidelines in an advisory fashion. The district court then gave Casanova the
opportunity to present mitigating factors at sentencing, to which Casanova
responded that because he was 66 years old, a sentence over 15 years would be
equivalent to a life sentence. In connection with this argument, he noted that age is
not “a determinant for lowering or a departure” and he did not expressly request a
1
Casanova does not assert error in the district court’s calculation of the advisory range of
324 to 405 months’ imprisonment.
3
downward variance or a departure, but he did ask that the court consider his age
under § 3553. The district court responded that age was not ordinarily a basis for a
downward departure, but also stated that it had considered “the statements of all
the parties” in reaching an advisory sentence. Ultimately, the court rejected
Casanova’s request for a sentence below the advisory range, stating that it had
considered the § 3553(a) factors prior to imposing a sentence at the lowest end of
the range Casanova faced.2
On this record, we can discern no Booker error in the imposition of
Casanova’s sentence, particularly given that this was not the first time Casanova
was convicted of drug smuggling on the high seas -- a point the government
highlighted in its response to Casanova’s argument in support of a lower sentence
based on his age.3 Cf. United States v. Dowd, 451 F.3d 1244, 1256-57 (11th
Cir.) (holding that a defendant’s 305-month sentence was not rendered
unreasonable due to his age of 65 years old where he had numerous prior felony
convictions and still committed the instant violent felony at that age). Moreover,
2
As for Casanova’s argument that his medical condition, in addition to his age, rendered
his sentence unreasonable, though he did not raise this as a mitigating factor at the sentencing
hearing, despite being given the opportunity to do so, the underlying facts were included in the PSI,
and the court specifically stated that it considered the PSI in fashioning an appropriate sentence.
3
According to the PSI, in 1987, at the age of 47, Casanova was convicted of possession
with intent to distribute marijuana and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment after he was
caught on a vessel named the Dick II with over a 1,000 kilograms of marijuana onboard.
4
the offense of attempting to smuggle cocaine into the United States was relatively
serious, the drug amount -- almost 2,000 kilograms of cocaine -- was significant,
and Casanova had a prior conviction for a similar offense for which he had been
sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. Finally, it was undisputed that he served
as the captain of the boat, directing the activities of the other crew members.
Based upon all of these factors, even considering Casanova’s age, his total
sentence was reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
5