USA v. Ovidio Santos-Flore

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Ovidio Santos-Flores. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 12-11115

Date Filed: 09/25/2012

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11115
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cr-80174-KLR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus

OVIDIO SANTOS-FLORES,
a.k.a. Mauricio Ortega,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 25, 2012)

Before BARKETT, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-11115

Date Filed: 09/25/2012

Page: 2 of 4

Ovidio Santos-Flores pled guilty to one count of reentry of a deported alien,
in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). The district court sentenced SantosFlores to 46 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Santos-Flores argues that his
sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court emphasized his
criminal history to the detriment of all of the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. In
particular, Santos-Flores asserts that the district court did not give due
consideration to his compelling personal history and status as a single parent.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “We may set
aside a sentence only if we determine, after giving a full measure of deference to
the sentencing judge, that the sentence imposed truly is unreasonable.” United
States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1191 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc), cert. denied, 131
S.Ct. 1813 (2011). The party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of
showing that it is unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors.
United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 674
(2010).
The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in” § 3553(a)(2), including the
need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide
2

Case: 12-11115

Date Filed: 09/25/2012

Page: 3 of 4

just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from
the defendant’s future criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), (a)(2). In imposing
a particular sentence, the court must consider the nature and circumstances of the
offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences
available, the applicable guideline range, the pertinent policy statements of the
Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and
the need to provide restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
Although the district court must consider all of the factors listed in § 3553
and give an explanation for the sentence imposed, the district court need not
discuss each factor explicitly. United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324
(11th Cir. 2008). Rather, the court need only acknowledge that it has considered
the § 3553(a) factors and the defendant’s arguments. Id. We defer to the district
court’s judgment regarding the weight given to the § 3553(a) factors unless the
district court made a clear error of judgment and imposed a sentence outside the
range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case. Id.
Here, Santos-Flores asserts that the district court focused single-mindedly on
his criminal history. The record belies this claim. The district court considered
Santos-Flores’s arguments regarding his personal history and status as a single
parent, but found that a sentence at the low end of the guideline range was
3

Case: 12-11115

Date Filed: 09/25/2012

Page: 4 of 4

appropriate given Santos-Flores’s criminal history and given the need for general
deterrence. Santos-Flores has not met his burden. Accordingly, we affirm the
sentence as substantively reasonable.
AFFIRMED.

4