[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
June 15, 2007
No. 06-15012 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-20277-CR-FAM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MANUEL SALVADOR HERNANDEZ-GOMEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 15, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Salvador Hernandez-Gomez appeals as unreasonable his sentence of
46 months of imprisonment for illegal reentry into the United States. The advisory
guidelines range was 46-57 months of imprisonment and the statutory maximum
was ten years of imprisonment. Hernandez-Gomez argues that the district court
expressed his disagreement with the guidelines range and imposed an unreasonable
sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We affirm.
“Review for reasonableness is deferential.” United States v. Talley, 431
F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). “[T]he party who challenges the sentence bears the
burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both that
record and the factors in section 3553(a).” Id. “When we review a sentence for
reasonableness, we do not, as the district court did, determine the exact sentence to
be imposed.” Id. “We must evaluate whether the sentence imposed by the district
court fails to achieve the purposes of sentencing as stated in section 3553(a).” Id.
“[W]hen the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines
range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one.” Id.
The district court did not err. The district court correctly recognized that its
general disagreement with the Sentencing Guidelines was not a legitimate reason
to vary from the Guidelines. See United States v. Williams, 456 F.3d 1353, 1366
(11th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, No. 06-7352 (U.S. Oct. 19, 2006). The
district court considered the factors in section 3553(a) and sentenced Hernandez-
2
Gomez well below the statutory maximum and at the low end of the guidelines
range. That sentence is not unreasonable.
Hernandez-Gomez’s sentence is
AFFIRMED.
3