USA v. Sydney Cesaire-Valery

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
January 6, 2010
JOHN LEY
ACTING CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-13048
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-20028-CR-JIC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SYDNEY CESAIRE-VALERY,
a.k.a. Sidney Cesaire-Valery,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(January 6, 2010)
Before BLACK, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sydney Cesaire-Valery appeals his 46-month sentence following his guilty

-- 1 of 3 --

plea to illegal reentry into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and
(b)(2). Cesaire argues that this sentence is substantively unreasonable because the
district court failed to make a proper assessment in light of the factors listed in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). We find no merit in Cesaire’s argument and affirm the sentence
of the district court.
We review the sentence of the district court for abuse of discretion. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007). Once we conclude that
the district court made no procedural errors, we then consider “the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence,” under the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 51,
128 S. Ct. at 597.1
Cesaire’s sentence was substantively reasonable. Cesaire argues that his
sentence is unreasonable because the district judge failed to give proper weight and
consideration to: (1) the fact that his purpose for returning to the United States was
to see his son; (2) that he was under the impression that a French judge could give
him permission to return to the United States; and, (3) that he did not have specific
intent to violate any federal statutes. However, the district judge, in pronouncing
sentence, specifically referred to “your guideline range and the statutory factors.”
Doc. 44 at 7 (emphasis added). This statement is adequate to establish the district
Cesaire did not raise the issue of procedural reasonableness, so we will not consider that1
issue.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d
1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005). As such, we find that the sentence of the district
court was procedurally and substantively reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --