[D O NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 06, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

N o . 06-11527

CLERK

N o n - A r g u m e n t Calendar

D . C. Docket No. 05-00362-CR-T-24EAJ

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JERRY LOUIS HYNDS-MATUTE,

Defendant-Appellant.

A p p e al from the United States District Court

fo r the Middle District of Florida

(S ep tem b er 6, 2006)

B efo re DUBINA, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

P E R CURIAM:

Je r r y Louis Hynds-Matute appeals his 135-month sentence for drug

tr af fic k in g offenses. Hynds-Matute argues that he should have received a minorr o le reduction, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, and that the district court imposed an u n r easo n ab le sentence when it failed to calculate correctly the guidelines im p riso n m en t range by not accounting for a minor-role reduction.

We review the district court's finding concerning the defendant's role in the o f f en s e for clear error. United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1 9 9 9 ) (en banc). The defendant bears the burden of proving that he played a minor ro le by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274, 1 2 7 7 (11th Cir. 2002). We cannot conclude on this record that the district court clearly erred in declining to apply a minor-role reduction.

We also review a defendant's ultimate sentence for reasonableness in light o f the 18U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1 2 4 6 (11th Cir. 2005). The burden of proving that the sentence is unreasonable in lig h t of the record and these factors rests on the challenger. United States v. T alley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).

To impose a reasonable sentence, the district court must correctly calculate th e guidelines imprisonment range and then consider the factors set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir. 2005). HyndsM a tu te 's only argument of unreasonableness is based on the district court's refusal to grant him a minor-role reduction. As noted above, this refusal was not clearly e rr o n e o u s . Furthermore, the district court correctly calculated the guidelines im p r is o n m e n t range and sentenced Hynds-Matute at the bottom of the range, e x p lic itly acknowledging that it had considered the §3553(a) factors before im p o sin g its sentence. Therefore, Hynds-Matute has failed to prove that his s en te n c e was unreasonable.

A F F IR M E D .