[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-14523 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar FEB 14, 2012
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cr-00003-BAE-GRS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FELIX VEIGA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 11-14637
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cr-00003-BAE-GRS-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ACIEL ALONSO,
a.k.a. Alonso Aciel,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(February 14, 2012)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, HULL and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Felix Veiga and Aciel Alonso appeal their 48-month sentences,
twice the applicable guideline range, after pleading guilty to unauthorized
possession of 15 or more credit cards, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3).
Appellants argue that their respective sentences are unreasonable. However, we
conclude, for reasons set forth below, that the district court properly calculated the
guidelines range and considered the appropriate factors and arrived at a reasonable
sentence in each instance.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008). The reasonableness review
consists of two steps. Id. First, we must check for procedural error, such as
improperly calculating the guidelines range, treating the guidelines as mandatory,
2
failing to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), selecting a sentence
based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence. Id.
Second, we must review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.
“The review for substantive unreasonableness involves examining the totality of
the circumstances, including an inquiry into whether the statutory factors in
§ 3553(a) support the sentence in question.” United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d
1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). “[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).” United States v.
Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). “The weight to be
accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion
of the district court.” United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir.
2008) (per curiam) (quotations and alteration omitted). We vacate a sentence only
if “left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a
clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence
that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the
case.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc)
(quotation omitted).
3
When sentencing a defendant, a district court shall consider: (1) the nature
and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the
offense, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, to protect the public
from further crimes of the defendant, and to provide the defendant with training,
medical care, or correctional treatment; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4)
the sentencing guidelines’ range; (5) pertinent Sentencing Commission policy
statements; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among
similarly situated defendants with similar records; and (7) the need to provide
restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Facts in the presentence investigation report (“PSI”) are undisputed and
deemed to be admitted unless a party objects to them. United States v. Beckles,
565 F.3d 832, 844 (11th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, all argument on appeal that
such facts are in error is precluded. Id.
We conclude from the record that Veiga and Alonso’s sentences are
reasonable. The facts used to calculate guideline enhancements were taken from
the PSI and not objected to before the district court. The facts contained in the PSI
were accurate and the enhancements were correctly calculated, making appellants’
4
respective sentences procedurally reasonable. Similarly, the record demonstrates
that the district court correctly considered all of the appropriate factors when
arriving at appellants’ sentences. The district court did not abuse its discretion
when it determined that the criminal activity in this case was particularly
troublesome, in light of the amount of fraudulent activity and the sophisticated
nature of the fraud. The district court properly determined that higher sentences
were necessary to deter confederates of Veiga and Alonso from engaging in
similar criminal conduct. Accordingly, the appellants’ respective sentences were
also substantively reasonable.
For the above-stated reasons, we affirm Veiga and Alonso’s sentences.
AFFIRMED.
5