[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-15615 JUNE 19, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00010-CR-FTM-29-SPC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 19, 2006)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Rafael Hernandez appeals his 60-month sentence for possession with intent
to distribute 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B)(vii), arguing that his sentence was unreasonable. After review, we
affirm.
Sentences imposed under an advisory Guidelines system are reviewed for
“unreasonableness.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261, 125 S. Ct. 738,
765 (2005). Following the Booker decision, we have stated that the district court
must first correctly calculate the defendant’s Guidelines range, and then, using the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the court can impose a more severe or
more lenient sentence as long as it is reasonable. United States v. Crawford, 407
F.3d 1174, 1179 (11th Cir. 2005).1 “[N]othing 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,
426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005). A district court’s statement that it had
considered the § 3553(a) factors is sufficient in post-Booker sentences to indicate
that it considered the factors. See id. at 1330. “Review for reasonableness is
deferential.” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). “[T]he
1
The § 3553(a) factors include the available sentences, the applicable Guideline range
and policy statements, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the need for the sentence
to (1) reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just
punishment for the offense, (2) afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, (3) protect the
public from further crimes of the defendant, and (4) provide the defendant with needed
correctional treatment. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1246
(11th Cir. 2005).
2
party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the
sentence is unreasonable in the light of both th[e] record and the factors in section
3553(a).” Id.
Though the district court is no longer strictly bound to the Guidelines, it is
nonetheless bound by statutory mandatory minimum sentences. United States v.
Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1333 n.10 (11th Cir. 2005). Booker does not grant a court
discretion to sentence below the mandatory minimum sentence. United States v.
Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291, 1300 (11th Cir. 2006). Further, when the statutory
mandatory minimum sentence is greater than the applicable Guidelines range, the
mandatory minimum is the Guidelines sentence. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b).
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we find
that Hernandez’s sentence was reasonable. The district court considered the
§ 3553(a) factors and sentenced Hernandez to the lowest sentence possible, the
applicable statutory mandatory minimum sentence. Further, 60 months was the
lowest possible Guidelines sentence. In arriving at the sentence, the district court
mentioned its consideration of the statutory factors. The court found that a
sentence of more than 60 months’ imprisonment was unnecessary. Accordingly,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3