[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-11118 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 25, 2012
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
Docket No. 9:10-cr-80148-KLR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDITH JOSE CABRERA,
a.k.a. Jose Medina,
a.k.a. Edith Jose Carera,
a.k.a. Jose Edith Cabrera,
a.k.a. Edith Cabrera Chikinkira,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 25, 2012)
Before EDMONDSON, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Edith Jose Cabrera appeals his 41-month sentence for illegally re-entering
the United States after having been deported as an aggravated felon, 8 U.S.C. §
1326(a) and (b)(2). Cabrera received a 16-level enhancement, pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i), based on his 1991 conviction for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute 64 kilograms of cocaine. No reversible error has
been shown; we affirm.
On appeal, Cabrera argues that his sentence substantively is unreasonable
because the district court failed to consider properly the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors and placed disproportionate weight on his 20-year-old drug trafficking
conviction.1 We evaluate the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597
(2007). The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of establishing that
the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both the record and the section 3553(a)
factors. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
The weight to be given a particular section 3553(a) factor is left to the sound
discretion of the district court. United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322
1
Cabrera also challenges the district court’s authority to enhance his advisory guideline range
based on a conviction that was neither alleged in the indictment nor proved to a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. We reject this argument because -- as Cabrera concedes -- it is foreclosed by our
decision in United States v. Marseille, 377 F.3d 1249, 1257 (11th Cir. 2004) (relying on
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 1222 (1998)).
2
(11th Cir. 2008). We will not reverse unless we are “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. Pugh, 515
F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008).
Cabrera has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is unreasonable. First,
his 41-month sentence is at the low end of the 41 to 51-month advisory guideline
sentence range, and we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be reasonable. See
Talley, 431 F.3d at 787-88 (concluding that, although not per se reasonable,
“ordinarily we would expect a sentence within the Guidelines range to be
reasonable”). His sentence is also well below the 20-year statutory maximum
sentence for his offense. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2); United States v. Gonzalez,
550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (concluding that the reasonableness of a
sentence may also be indicated when the sentence imposed was well below the
statutory maximum sentence).
We also are unconvinced that the district court committed a clear error of
judgment in weighing the statutory factors. The district court rejected expressly
Cabrera’s argument about the age of his drug trafficking conviction. And although
3
the court did not discuss each of Cabrera’s other mitigating factors,2 it was not
required to do so. See United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329-30 (11th Cir.
2005). Instead, it was sufficient that the district court acknowledged expressly that
it had considered Cabrera’s arguments and the section 3553(a) factors. See id.
Moreover, it was within the district court’s discretion to weigh Cabrera’s
mitigating evidence against other factors, such as his criminal history and the need
to promote respect for the law and to afford adequate deterrence. In doing so, the
court concluded that although “[t]here are many factors here that you could
sympathize with . . . I think we would be sending the wrong message to totally
ignore the enormity of” Cabrera’s drug trafficking crime. Based on this record, the
court did not “focus single-mindedly” on one section 3553(a) factor to the
detriment of the other factors and we see no abuse of discretion. See United States
v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir. 2006) (concluding that a sentence was
unreasonable when the district court “focused single-mindedly on the goal of
restitution to the detriment of all of the other sentencing factors”).
2
At his sentencing hearing, Cabrera argued that he should receive a downward variance based
on (1) the age of his drug trafficking conviction, (2) his recent lack of arrests or convictions, (3) his
earlier cooperation with the government, and (4) that he returned to the United States to escape
being tortured in his home country and to be closer to his children. About the third factor, the record
demonstrates that, following his drug trafficking conviction, Cabrera assisted the government in
several investigations and prosecutions of other drug traffickers. As a result of his cooperation, his
sentence was reduced from 188 months’ to 78 months’ imprisonment.
4
We also reject Cabrera’s argument that the 16-level enhancement under
section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) is unreasonable per se. His contentions that section
2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) impermissibly double counts his criminal history and fails to
take into account fast-track disparities are foreclosed by our decisions in United
States v. Adeleke, 968 F.2d 1159, 1161 (11th Cir. 1992) (rejecting the defendant’s
argument that section 2L1.2(b)(1) was unconstitutional because it double counted
his criminal history), and United States v. Llanos-Agostadero, 486 F.3d 1194, 1199
(11th Cir. 2007) (concluding that district courts are prohibited from considering
“fast-track disparities when imposing [a] sentence”). In addition, we reject
Cabrera’s argument that section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) is unreasonable because it fails to
account for the severity of a prior offense: the guidelines permit a district court to
grant a departure if the court concludes that the offense level under section
2L1.2(b)(1)(A) “substantially overstates or understates the seriousness of a prior
conviction.” See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment. (n.7).
AFFIRMED.
5