Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-19-11743/USCOURTS-ca11-19-11743-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Earl Burgest
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-11743

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:05-cr-80146-KAM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

EARL BURGEST,

a.k.a. Earl Burgess, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 21, 2020)

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

USCA11 Case: 19-11743 Date Filed: 01/21/2020 Page: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM: 

Earl Burgest, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s imposed 

sentence on his motion for retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act of 

2010, Pub. L. No. 111 220, 124 Stat. 2372, § 2(a), to his 2006 sentence, pursuant to 

§ 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Burgest 

was originally sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment and 8 years of supervised 

release. After the district court found that Burgest’s new Sentencing Guidelines 

range was 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment, instead of 360 months to life, the 

district court imposed a reduced sentence of 276 months and stated that all of the 

other provisions of the judgment would remain in effect. Burgest wanted a lower 

sentence. Burgest argues that the district court, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(c)(1), failed to provide a sufficient reason for the given reduced sentence

The question of whether a district court complied with 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(c)(1) is reviewed de novo, even absent a defense objection below. United 

States v. Bonilla, 463 F.3d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 2006). At the time of sentencing, 

the district court must state its reasons for imposing a particular sentence. 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1). The district court “should set forth enough to satisfy the 

appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned 

basis for exercising [its] legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 

USCA11 Case: 19-11743 Date Filed: 01/21/2020 Page: 2 of 4
3

551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). A district court’s determination “that a given sentence 

is appropriate, without more detail, is a truism and not an explanation.” United 

States v. Veteto, 920 F.2d 823, 826 (11th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, “nothing in this 

Circuit’s precedent or [United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)] requires the 

district court, in its explanation of sentence under § 3553(c)(1), to articulate its 

consideration of each individual § 3553(a) factor, particularly where . . . it is 

obvious the court considered many of the § 3553(a) factors. . . .” Bonilla, 463 F.3d 

at 1182 (emphasis removed).

The Fair Sentencing Act, enacted in 2010, amended 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(b)(1) and 960(b) to reduce the sentencing disparity between crack and 

powder cocaine. Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 

2372; see also Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260, 268-69 (2012) (detailing the 

history that led to enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act). Congress enacted the 

First Step Act in 2018, which makes retroactive the statutory penalties for covered 

offenses enacted under the Fair Sentencing Act. First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 

No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, § 404.

A review of the record shows that the district court satisfied 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(c)(1) when it imposed a reduced sentence of 276 months’ imprisonment

because the district court stated that it had reviewed the record, the parties’

arguments, and the § 3553(a) factors and found that a sentence within Burgest’s 

USCA11 Case: 19-11743 Date Filed: 01/21/2020 Page: 3 of 4
4

Sentencing Guidelines range would be sufficient but not greater than necessary to 

comply with § 3553(a). Thus, the district court set forth enough to satisfy us that it 

had considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for the sentence it 

imposed. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 19-11743 Date Filed: 01/21/2020 Page: 4 of 4