[DO NOT PUBLISH]

                        IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                               FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                                                             FILED
                                 ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                   ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                       No. 10-12726                 FEBRUARY 4, 2011
                                   Non-Argument Calendar               JOHN LEY
                                                                        CLERK
                                 ________________________

                          D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cr-00004-SCB-MAP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll                                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                            versus



ARNULFO ANTONIO GUZMAN-ALAS,

lllllllllllllllllllll                                              Defendant-Appellant.

                                ________________________

                          Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the Middle District of Florida
                                ________________________

                                      (February 4, 2011)

Before EDMONDSON, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
      Arnulfo Antonio Guzman-Alas appeals his 46-month sentence imposed

after pleading guilty to illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§§ 1326(a) & (b)(2). Pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, Guzman-Alas’s

offense level was 21 and criminal history category was III, resulting in a guideline

range of 46 to 57 months. See §§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i), 3E1.1(a) & (b) (2010).

Guzman-Alas argues that his within-guideline sentence is procedurally and

substantively unreasonable. After thorough review, we affirm.

      We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-

discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 

, 41, 

, 591

(2007). We must first “ensure that the district court committed no significant

procedural error . . . [and] then consider the substantive reasonableness of the

sentence imposed.” United States v. Pugh, 

, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008).

Procedural errors include: “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.” 

552 U.S. at 

). We look to the § 3553(a) factors to guide our substantive




                                           2
reasonableness review. United States v. Winingear, 

, 1246 (11th

Cir. 2005).

                                           I.

      Guzman-Alas first argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable

because the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons for imposing his

46-month sentence. “[T]he party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of

establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both th[e] record and

the factors in section 3553(a).” United States v. Campbell, 

, 1313

(11th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Talley, 

, 788 (11th Cir.

2005)). When the district court imposes a sentence within the guideline range

“doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita v. United States,

, 356, 

, 2468 (2007). The district court need only

make “an acknowledgment . . . that it has considered the defendant’s arguments

and the factors in section 3553(a).” 

. “[N]othing . . .

requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered

each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors.” United

States v. Scott, 

, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005).




                                           3
      The district court committed no procedural error in imposing Guzman-

Alas’s sentence. At the beginning of Guzman-Alas’s sentencing hearing, the

district court explained the guideline calculation. Guzman-Alas conceded at

sentencing that the guideline range the district court applied was correct.

Guzman-Alas acknowledges that the district court stated that it had considered

each of the § 3553(a) factors. Moreover, the district court explained that it was

imposing Guzman-Alas’s sentence to deter him from future criminal conduct and

to protect the public. The district court’s explanation was sufficient.

                                          II.

      Guzman-Alas next argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

because the circumstances of his case warrant less severe punishment in light of

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. When reviewing a sentence for substantive

reasonableness, we examine the totality of the circumstances and determine

whether the sentence achieves the sentencing goals stated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

United States v. Culver, 

, 753 (11th Cir. 2010); 

. We ordinarily expect a sentence within the guidelines range to be

reasonable. 

. Further, it is within the district court’s

discretion to weigh the § 3553(a) factors, and “[w]e will not substitute our




                                          4
judgment in weighing the relevant [statutory] factors.” United States v. Amedeo,

, 832 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).

      Guzman-Alas’s sentence is substantively reasonable. His sentence is at the

bottom of the guideline range. See 

. It is also well below

the twenty-year statutory maximum sentence for illegal reentry. See 8 U.S.C. §

1326(b)(2). It was within the district court’s discretion to weigh the § 3553(a)

factors, in light of Guzman-Alas’s criminal history, and select a sentence at the

bottom of the guideline range. See 

.

      AFFIRMED.




                                          5