USA v. Basillio Alvardo

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JAN 23, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-12691
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cr-00348-JSM-TGW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
l Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BASILLIO ALVARDO,
a.k.a. Basillio Alvarado,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 23, 2012)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Basillio Alvardo appeals his sentence of 420 months of imprisonment for

-- 1 of 3 --

possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm and
ammunition by a felon. Alvardo argues his sentence was procedurally
unreasonable. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). We affirm.
Section 3553(c) requires that the district court state its reasons for imposing
a particular sentence. Id. The district court satisfies section 3553(c) if it states
that it “has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis” for its
conclusion. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468
(2007); United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2009). A brief
explanation is sufficient, particularly when the arguments made are “conceptually
simple.” Rita, 551 U.S. at 356, 127 S. Ct. at 2468.
The explanation provided by the district court, “though brief, was legally
sufficient.” Id. Alvardo argued briefly for a downward variance, but he admitted
that he had a lengthy criminal history and a history of substance abuse. The
district court acknowledged that Alvardo had “made a statement” and then
explained that it had “reviewed the presentence report and considered the advisory
guidelines and the factors of 18 USC, Section 3553” and determined that a
sentence of 420 months of imprisonment within the guideline range was
“sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the statutory purposes of
2

-- 2 of 3 --

sentencing.”
We AFFIRM Alvardo’s sentence.
3

-- 3 of 3 --