USA v. Henrique Luis Gomes

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 1, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-16377
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-00390-CR-T-26MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HENRIQUE LUIS GOMES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(October 1, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, BLACK and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 3 --

Henrique Luis Gomes received a bottom-of the-Guidelines 70-month
sentence after pleading guilty to reentry of a deported alien, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2), and unlawful entry by an alien, in violation of
8 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a)(1) & 1329. Gomes argues that his sentence was both
procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court placed
undue weight on the need to avoid sentencing disparities among defendants, one of
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. After review of the record and careful
consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a 70-month
sentence and by denying Gomes’s request for a downward variance. Although the1
district court emphasized the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, it
did not do so “single-mindedly” to the detriment of the other § 3553(a) factors. See
United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that a
district court’s “single-minded[]” focus on one sentencing factor to the exclusion
of the others resulted in an unreasonable sentence). Instead, the district court
imposed a sentence that was supported by the record and that met the goals set
We review the reasonableness of a district court’s sentence under a deferential abuse-1
of-discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591
(2007).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

forth by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). That the district court emphasized one particular
sentencing factor does not indicate that it failed
to consider the others. See United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th
Cir. 2008) (“The weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter
committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” (quotations and alteration
omitted).); United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[W]hen
the district court considers the factors of section 3553(a), it need not discuss each
of them.”).
Gomes has not carried his burden of demonstrating that his sentence was
either procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm.2
AFFIRMED.
“[T]he party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the2
sentence is unreasonable.” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
3

-- 3 of 3 --