[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 23, 2007
No. 06-16456 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00108-CR-T-27MSS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LENNARD ALLEN, JR.,
a.k.a. Kiki,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(July 23, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lennard Allen Jr. appeals his sentence of imprisonment for 70 months for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. §§
841(b)(1)(A)(ii), 846. Allen argues that the district court relied too heavily on the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines and imposed an unreasonable sentence. Allen
contends, alternatively, that the district court should have granted a downward
departure based on his “extraordinary” circumstances. 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 [the]
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.
Arguments raised for the first time on appeal are reviewed for plain error. United
States v. Raad, 406 F.3d 1322, 1323 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 126 S. Ct.
196 (2005).
Allen’s main argument fails. Allen’s sentence of 70 months of
imprisonment, which was the low end of the advisory guidelines range, was
2
reasonable. The transcript of the sentencing hearing establishes that the district
court sentenced Allen after careful consideration of Allen’s arguments in favor of
mitigation, the Guidelines, and the sentencing factors of section 3553(a).
Allen contends, alternatively, that the district court erred by failing to revisit
possible downward departures not mentioned in the presentence investigation
report, see U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, et seq., but this argument also fails. Because Allen
failed to object to the calculation of the Guidelines range before the district court,
we review for plain error. Allen cites no authority for his argument that the district
court was obliged to consider sua sponte possible downward departures not
mentioned either in the presentence report or by Allen at the sentencing hearing.
The district court did not plainly err.
Allen’s sentence is
AFFIRMED.
3