[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-11166 AUGUST 16, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00026-CR-T-17-TBM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
APOLINAR AGUIRRE CASTRO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(August 16, 2006)
Before BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Apolinar Aguirre Castro appeals his 87-month sentence imposed after
pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in
violation of 46 App. U.S.C. § 1903(a), (g), and 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), and
one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine while on board a vessel
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, also in violation of 46 App. U.S.C.
§ 1903(a), (g), and 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii). Castro appeals his sentence as
unreasonable, arguing that, when it was imposed the district court failed to
consider all of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The government contends that this appeal should be reviewed for plain error
because of Castro’s failure to make any objections to the sentence at his sentencing
hearing, while Castro contends that the standard of review is reasonableness. We
need not decide the issue because his sentence is reasonable and due to be affirmed
under either standard of review.
A district court’s sentence imposed under the advisory guideline regime is
reviewable for “unreasonableness.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261,
125 S.Ct. 738, 765, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The Supreme Court in Booker
directed sentencing courts to consider the following factors in imposing sentences
under the advisory guidelines scheme:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed
2
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the
law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford
adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public
from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant
with needed [treatment]; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the
kinds of sentence and the sentencing range. . .; (6) the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar
records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and (7) the
need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Booker, 543 U.S. at 261, 125 S.Ct. at 765-66. There is no
requirement, however, that the district court engage in a detailed, step-by-step
analysis of every factor, and this Court has held that “nothing 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).
Because the district court considered Castro’s arguments and suggested
mitigating factors, reduced his total offense level from 33 to 29, thereby doubling
the reduction moved for by the government pursuant to U.S.S.G. 5K1.1, and
imposed a sentence at the low end of the advisory guideline range, and given the
crime committed, Castro’s sentence was not unreasonably long. Accordingly, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3