[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-15293 September 24, 2008
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-60091-CR-WJZ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALCIUS CALIXTE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(September 24, 2008)
Before DUBINA, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Alcius Calixte (“Calixte”) appeals his 41-month sentence
imposed for illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On appeal, Calixte argues that his sentence is procedurally and
substantively unreasonable because the district court placed undue weight on the
advisory sentencing guidelines and failed to give adequate consideration to, and
analysis of, factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Calixte argues that the district
court’s failure to give proper consideration to § 3553(a)(1), the history and
characteristics of the defendant, is reflected by the fact that the district court did
not sentence him below the advisory guidelines range despite his presentation of
mitigating factors.
We review sentences for reasonableness. See United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220, 261-64, 125 S. Ct. 738, 765-67, 160 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2005). We will
reverse only for abuse of discretion, giving deference to the district court. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591, 169 L. Ed. 2d. 445 (2007). A
sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court failed to calculate or
incorrectly calculated the Guidelines, treated the Guidelines as mandatory, failed
to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous
facts, or failed to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Id. at ___, 128 S. Ct. at
597. The Supreme Court has suggested that a sentence is substantively
2
unreasonable if it is not supported by the § 3553(a) factors. Id. at ___, 128 S. Ct.
at 600.
Section 3553(a) provides that district courts must consider, inter alia, (1) the
applicable Guideline range; (2) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (3)
the history and characteristics of the defendant; (4) 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; (5) the need for adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct; (6) protection of the public from further crimes of
the defendant; and (7) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(6).
After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that
the district court followed the proper sentencing procedures by treating the
guidelines as advisory and considering the § 3553(a) factors. Because Calixte’s
sentence is no greater than necessary to fulfill the statutory purposes of sentencing,
the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to impose a below-
guidelines sentence. Accordingly, we affirm Calixte’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3