[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-13214 MAY 17, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-20836-CR-CMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTONIO LUDOVICO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 17, 2006)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant pled guilty to three counts of an indictment: Counts 1 and 2,
conspiring to commit and committing a Hobbs Act Robbery; Count 3, conspiring
to possess a firearm during a crime of violence. The district court sentenced
appellant to a concurrent 78-month term of imprisonment – at the low end of the
Guidelines sentence range – on each count. He now appeals his sentences,
claiming that they are unreasonable.
Appellant contends that the district court failed appropriately to consider the
sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in fashioning his sentences. He
also claims that the sentence range prescribed by the Guidelines overstated his
personal involvement in the offenses and failed to consider his remorse, that he did
not personally cause the victim’s injury, and that he had led a law-abiding life and
enjoyed a professional career prior to his involvement in the criminal activity in
this case.
In reviewing sentences for reasonableness under United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we “determine whether the
sentence imposed by the district court was reasonable in the context of the factors
outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1328
(11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Before undertaking this
task, though, we determine whether the district court consulted the Guidelines,
took them into account, and correctly calculated the Guidelines sentence range,
United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, 1178 (11th Cir. 2005) (emphasis
2
omitted), before it turned to the § 3553(a) factors.
Appellant concedes that the district court correctly arrived at the Guidelines
sentence range in his case. Although the court did not on the record discuss one-
by-one the factors set out in § 3553(a), it did so implicitly in the context of
considering appellant’s arguments in mitigation and his claim that, given the §
3553(a) sentencing factors, the prescribed sentence range overstated the need for
his imprisonment for at least 78 months. The court concluded that concurrent
sentences of 78 months were reasonable in the circumstances presented. We agree.
AFFIRMED.
3