
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kerby LUMA, a.k.a. Money Makin Kerb, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-11644 Non-Argument Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Filed (January 11, 2017)
    Carol Herman, Laura Thomas Rivero, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Emily M. Smachetti, Brooke C. Watson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, Bernardo Lopez, Federal Public defender’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Kerby Luma appeals his sentence of imprisonment for 108 months, after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 286;' one count of conspiracy to possess 15 or more unauthorized access devices, id. § 1029(b)(2); one count of possession of 15 or more unauthorized access devices, id. § 1029(a)(3); and one count of aggravated identity theft, id. § 1028A. Luma argues that his sentence at the lowest end of the advisory guideline range is unreasonable because the district court misconstrued his argument that the loss calculation substantially overstated the severity of his offense. We affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness. United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1245 (11th Cir. 2005). Our review is deferential for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

The district court did not abuse its discretion. Luma withdrew his objection to the loss amount at sentencing and stated, “We’re agreeing that the intended loss amount calculated in the presentence report is correct.” As a result, Luma waived any objection to the calculation of the loss amount. United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir. 2006). And the district court did not misconstrue Luma’s argument about the difference between the actual and intended loss amounts. The district court instead determined that the seriousness of Luma’s crimes and the need to promote respect for the law and to deter others warranted a sentence within the advisory guideline range. Luma’s sentence is reasonable.

AFFIRMED.  