
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, CrossAppellant, v. Juan VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, Selin Santana, Rudys Marine, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 06-14539.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    April 14, 2008.
    Brenda G. Bryn, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.
    
      Sheryl Joyce Lowenthal, Kathleen M. Williams, Robert John Becerra, Sandler, Travis and Rosenberg, Miami, FL, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Jeanne Marie Mullenhoff, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.
    Before WILSON, COX and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Honorable Pasco M. Bowman, II, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

After a careful consideration of the briefs, review of the record on appeal, and having heard oral argument in the matter, we find no reversible error.

Appellants raise no less than ten issues on appeal. Only one issue, however, merits discussion. Juan Vasquez (“Vasquez”) argues that the imposition of a 240-month sentence, which was approximately double the sentence at the top of his court-calculated advisory guideline range (97-121 months), was unreasonable because the district court focused single-mindedly on its finding of obstruction of justice, which Vasquez had already received an enhancement for. Vasquez attempts to rely on United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285,1292 (11th Cir.2006) (holding that the district court’s unjustified reliance upon the single goal of restitution to the detriment of all of the other sentencing factors produced an unreasonable sentence).

We are not persuaded that the district court was “single-minded” in its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. We agree with the government that while the district court emphasized its finding that Vasquez committed perjury, it also based the sentence on other factors, such as: (1) the nature and circumstances of Vasquez’s offenses were very serious; (2) Vasquez was, on the whole, more culpable than his co-defendant, Selin Santana, who received a 200 month sentence; and (3) Vasquez was responsible for more drug quantity than the amount of three kilograms entered by the jury on the special verdict form.

In light of all of the findings made by the district court at sentencing, we do not hold that the sentence imposed was unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.  