[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 2, 2008
No. 07-15654
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00044-CR-FTM-29SPC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CUAHTEMOC CARBAJAL-LOPEZ,
a.k.a. Cuauhtemoc Carbajal Lopez,
a.k.a. Carbajal L. Cuauhtemoc,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(July 2, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Cuahtemoc Carbajal-Lopez appeals his 57-month sentence imposed for re-
entry into the United States after deportation. On appeal, Carbajal-Lopez argues
that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because it (1) failed to
adequately consider his mitigation evidence, (2) did not give specific reasons for
the sentence imposed, and (3) focused too heavily on the offense of conviction.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Our review of the final sentence imposed by the district court is for
reasonableness. United States v. Agbai, 497 F.3d 1226, 1229 (11th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam). The Supreme Court has explained that the reasonableness standard means
review for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.
Ed. 2d 445 (2007).
The district court must impose a sentence that is both procedurally and
substantively reasonable. Id. A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the
district court improperly calculated the guideline imprisonment range, treated the
Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the appropriate statutory factors, based
the sentence on clearly erroneous facts, or failed to adequately explain its
reasoning. Id. If the district court made no procedural errors, then the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence is reviewed to determine whether the sentence is
supported by the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id. at 600.
2
The § 3553(a) factors include:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history
and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and
to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for
deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to
provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational
training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available;
(7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy
statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid
unwanted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide
restitution to victims.
United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). When a
district court sentences a defendant within the guidelines range, only a brief
discussion of the reasons for the sentence is required and the district court need not
explicitly address each of the sentencing factors. See United States v. Scott, 426
F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that nothing in Booker requires that the
district court state it has explicitly considered each § 3553(a) factor). “[W]hen 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.
The district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence because it
correctly applied the guidelines and adequately considered all the sentencing
factors in imposing a within-guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we affirm
Carbajal-Lopez’s sentence.
3
AFFIRMED.
4