
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessie James GREGG, a.k.a. Jessie Gregg, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-12144
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Nov. 3, 2011.
    Phillip Dirosa, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Anne R. Schultz, Evelyn Baltodano-Sheehan, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Kathleen M. Salyer, Seth M. Schlessinger, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael David Spivack, Kathleen M. Williams, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jessie Gregg appeals his sentence of 151 months of imprisonment for bank robbery. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d). Gregg argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

Gregg’s sentence is reasonable. Gregg argues that the district court erroneously “impos[ed] ... a prison term to promote [his] rehabilitation,” see Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2391, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011), but the district court stated that it was “not sure that the sentence should take into account the need for training or education,” and it did not “base[] [Gregg’s] sentence on [that] impermissible factorf ],” United States v. Sarras, 575 F.3d 1191, 1219 (11th Cir.2009). The district court reasonably determined that Gregg should receive a “high sentence” based on the “serious” nature of his “armed bank robbery”; his “distressing personal history consisting of a continuous, repeated, practically nonstop life of crime from a very young age of 12”; his inability to “live outside an institutional setting respectful of other rights to liberty, ... security, ... [and] to own property”; and the need to deter him from future similar crimes. The district court did not abuse its discretion.

We AFFIRM Gregg’s sentence.  