[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-12035

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICKEY HERBERT DELANCEY, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20471-KMM-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-12035 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/11/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 24-12035

Before WILSON, LUCK and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Rickey Delancey Jr. appeals his 9-month sentence imposed

after revocation of his supervised release. Delancey argues that his 

sentence is substantively unreasonable because the court improperly questioned his expressions of remorse. 

We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion, which includes both substantive and procedural reasonableness. United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1321-22 (11th Cir. 

2008). The party challenging a sentence bears the burden of showing that the sentence is unreasonable. Id. at 1322. Although we do 

not automatically presume a sentence falling within the guideline 

range is reasonable, we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be reasonable. United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008).

On substantive reasonableness review, we may vacate the 

sentence only if we are left with the definite and firm conviction 

that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in 

weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to arrive at an unreasonable sentence based on the facts of the case. United States v. Irey, 612 

F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). A district court abuses its 

discretion when it (1) fails to consider relevant factors that were due 

significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment by balancing the proper factors unreasonably. Id. at 1189. We consider 

whether a sentence is substantively unreasonable under the totality 

USCA11 Case: 24-12035 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/11/2024 Page: 2 of 5
24-12035 Opinion of the Court 3

of the circumstances and in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Williams, 526 F.3d at 1322. The district court is required to 

evaluate all of the § 3553(a) factors, but the weight given to each 

factor is within the sound discretion of the district court. United 

States v. Ramirez-Gonzalez, 755 F.3d 1267, 1272-73 (11th Cir. 2014). 

The district court also does not have to give all of the factors equal 

weight and is given discretion to attach great weight to one factor 

over another. United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 

(11th Cir. 2015). However, a district court’s unjustified reliance on 

any one § 3553(a) factors may be indicative of an unreasonable sentence. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008). 

The factors the district court is to consider include the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, 

and to provide just punishment for the offense as well as to afford 

specific and general deterrence; and the need to avoid unwarranted 

sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who 

have been found guilty of similar conduct. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). While the district court should consider and properly 

calculate the advisory guidelines range, it is permitted to give 

greater weight to other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Rosales-Bruno, 

789 F.3d at 1259. 

While a district court must consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors in determining a sentence, it is not required to state in its 

explanation that it has evaluated each factor individually. United 

USCA11 Case: 24-12035 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/11/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 24-12035

States v. Ortiz-Delgado, 451 F.3d 752, 758 (11th Cir. 2006). An acknowledgment by the district court that it has considered the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors is sufficient. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 

1265, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007). Ultimately, the court must explain the 

sentence with enough detail to satisfy the appellate court that it has 

considered the arguments of the parties and has a reasoned basis 

for its decision. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).

Here, the court did not abuse its discretion because 

Delancey’s 9-month sentence is substantively reasonable based on 

the totality of the circumstances because the court properly 

weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. While the court did not 

specifically state that it considered the § 3553(a) factors, it did state 

in its decision that Delancey’s six violations showed that he did not 

respect the law which is one of the § 3553(a) factors, which indicates that the court did consider the factors in its decision. Turner, 

474 F.3d at 1281. The court also stated that it considered the parties’ arguments and the violation report as well as Delancey’s 

guidelines range in imposing its sentence. The court did not consider any improper factors but weighed certain factors more heavily in its reasoning, which it was permitted to do. Irey, 612 F.3d at 

1189. The court explained that it sentenced Delancey within his 

guidelines range because the court questioned Delancey’s remorse 

due to his committing six violations of his supervised release immediately after his sentence for the underlying conviction and that 

Delancey made no effort to pay the special assessment or restitution which all showed that he did not have respect for the law. The 

court also expressly stated that its finding regarding Delancey’s 

USCA11 Case: 24-12035 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/11/2024 Page: 4 of 5
24-12035 Opinion of the Court 5

remorse was under the respect for the law factor of § 3553(a). 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a). Further, the court sentenced Delancey within his 

guidelines range and thus his sentence is expected to be reasonable. 

Hunt, 526 F.3d at 746. Therefore, the court’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 24-12035 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/11/2024 Page: 5 of 5