[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-11499

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cr-00034-RWS-JCF-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

MITCHELL LOGAN REEVES, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(January 25, 2018)

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-11499 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Mitchell Reeves appeals his 104-month sentence for armed bank robbery 

and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. He argues 

that his below-guideline sentence was substantively unreasonable because the 

district court ignored mitigating factors, including his lack of criminal history, drug 

addiction, and traumatic childhood; placed too much emphasis on the seriousness 

of the offense; and improperly speculated about the effect the offense may have 

had on the bank teller.

We review the reasonableness of a sentence under the deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). 

The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of showing that the sentence is 

unreasonable in light of the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id.

The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than 

necessary to comply with the purposes” of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), including the 

need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide 

just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from 

the defendant’s future criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The court 

must also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and 

characteristics of the defendant. Id. § 3553(a)(1). While the weight given to any 

specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound discretion of the district court, 

United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007), the court abuses its 

Case: 17-11499 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 2 of 3 
3

discretion when it “(1) fails to afford consideration to 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 in considering the proper factors.” 

United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Although 

we do not presume that 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). 

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a 104-month 

total sentence, which was below the guideline range and well below the statutory 

maximum. The district court thoughtfully considered the mitigating factors, 

including Reeves’s difficult upbringing, his drug addictions, his lack of criminal 

history, and the support he received from family and friends. But it reasonably 

relied on the seriousness of the offense, which included pointing a loaded gun at a 

bank teller, and it was not improper for the district court to draw on past 

experience to consider the effect the offense may have had on the teller. See 

United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009) (“There is no 

requirement that sentencing judges . . . ignore what they have learned from similar 

cases over the years.”).

Reeves’s sentence was substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-11499 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 3 of 3