USA v. Pedro Desousa

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 24, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-10913
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-20524-ASG-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PEDRO DESOUSA,
a.k.a. Pedro J. De Sousa,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 24, 2011)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 3 --

Pedro DeSousa appeals his 33-month sentence, imposed after he pleaded
guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1349. DeSousa contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
After review, we affirm.
I.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a “deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591
(2007). In reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, we perform two steps. United
States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1237 (11th Cir. 2009). First, we ensure that the
district court did not commit significant procedural error, “such as failing to
calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines
as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based
on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597.
If we conclude that no procedural error occurred, “the second step is to
review the sentence’s ‘substantive reasonableness’ under the totality of the
circumstances, including ‘the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.’”
Shaw, 560 F.3d at 1237 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

“Although we do not automatically presume a sentence within the [G]uidelines
range is reasonable, we ‘ordinarily . . . expect a sentence within the Guidelines
range to be reasonable.’” United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir.
2008) (quoting United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005))
(alteration in original). “The party challenging the reasonableness of a sentence
‘bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of
both [the] record and the factors in section 3553(a).’” United States v. Flores, 572
F.3d 1254, 1270 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Talley, 431 F.3d at 788) (alteration in
original).
DeSousa does not contend that the district court committed procedural error.
Rather, he argues that his 33-month sentence, which was within his Guidelines’
range of 27 to 33 months’ imprisonment, is substantively unreasonable because it
is greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing. However,
DeSousa fails to offer any reason why the record does not support his sentence.
Accordingly, DeSousa has not carried his burden of showing that his sentence is
unreasonable. See Flores, 572 F.3d at 1270.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --