[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
June 5, 2006
No. 05-16030 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00053-CR-T-30TGW
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES ORTIZ-CASTRO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 5, 2006)
Before DUBINA, CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James Ortiz-Castro appeals his 135-month sentence imposed for possession
and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine
while on board a vessel subject to United States jurisdiction in violation of 46
U.S.C. App. § 1903(a), (g), (j), 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii).
Ortiz contends that the court’s sentence was unreasonable under United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 264, 125 S. Ct. 738, 767 (2005), and that he should have
received a sentence below the guidelines range because he provided law
enforcement with valuable information. Ortiz also contends that the district court
should have given more weight to his expressed remorse for his actions and the
fact that he is a family man with no criminal history. He contends that he was
transporting drugs to support his family in Colombia and that Colombia is a poor
country that lacks a good welfare system.
After Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738, a district court, in determining a
reasonable sentence, must consider the correctly calculated sentencing range under
the advisory guidelines and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United
States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir. 2005). Among the factors that a
district court should consider at sentencing are the nature and circumstances of the
offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for adequate
deterrence and protection of the public, the pertinent Sentencing Commission
policy statements, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See
2
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(7). Booker does not require the district court to state on
the record that it has explicitly considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or even to
discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329
(11th Cir. 2005). Instead, indications in the record that the district court
considered facts and circumstances falling within § 3553(a)’s factors will suffice.
Id. at 1329–30; Talley, 431 F.3d at 786.
“Review for reasonableness is deferential. . . . and when the district court
imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect
that choice to be a reasonable one.” Talley, 431 F.3d at 788. “[T]he 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).”
Id.
We conclude that Ortiz’s 135-month sentence was reasonable. The district
court considered Ortiz’s circumstances and awarded a two-level downward
departure based on his substantial assistance to the government. The court
sentenced Ortiz at the bottom of the correctly calculated guidelines range and well
below the statutory maximum of life imprisonment. The court also explicitly
stated at sentencing that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors, and that the
sentence was “sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the
3
statutory purposes of sentencing.”
The offense involved possession with intent to distribute 1,170 kilograms of
cocaine, and Ortiz had a substantial role in running and navigating the boat and
recruiting and directing the crew. The sentence is reasonable in light of the nature
and circumstances of the offense as well as the need for adequate deterrence and
protection of the public. Ortiz’s remorse for his conduct, his alleged motivation to
illegally transport drugs into the United States to help his family in Colombia, and
his lack of criminal history combined do not make this sentence unreasonable.
Because Ortiz has not met his burden of showing the sentence is unreasonable, and
under our review is deferential, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4