[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10429

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

JESSE BERNARD ROBINSON, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cr-00127-WWB-DCI-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-10429 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10429

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, AND LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jesse Bernard Robinson, Jr. appeals his 188-month sentence 

for eight counts of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

fentanyl and distribution of fentanyl. Robinson challenges his sentence as substantively unreasonable because the district court failed 

to account for his difficult background, excessively weighed his 

criminal history, and abused its discretion by denying his request 

for a downward variance from the applicable guideline range. We 

affirm.

We evaluate the reasonableness of a sentence under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” See Gall v. United States, 

552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In reviewing the substantive reasonableness 

of a sentence, we consider the totality of the circumstances and 

whether the sentence achieves the purposes of sentencing stated in 

18 U.S.C. section 3553(a). See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 

1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).

The purposes of sentencing include promoting respect for 

the law, providing just punishment, deterring criminal conduct, 

and protecting the public from further crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a)(2). A sentencing court also should consider the nature and 

circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the 

defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the guideline range, 

USCA11 Case: 21-10429 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 2 of 4
21-10429 Opinion of the Court 3

policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, and the need to 

avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7).

We will disturb a 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 section 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences 

dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d 

1204, 1224 (11th Cir. 2018) (alterations omitted). The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of showing that the sentence 

is unreasonable in the light of the record and the section 3553(a) 

factors. Id.

Robinson has failed to demonstrate that his 188-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. Robinson’s sentence represents the low end of the advisory guideline range of 188 to 235

months’ imprisonment. Although we do not automatically presume that a within-guideline sentence is reasonable, we ordinarily 

expect it to be. United States v. Perkins, 787 F.3d 1329, 1342 (11th 

Cir. 2015).

The district court explained that a sentence of 188 months 

was sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing set forth in section 3553(a). The district court

considered Robinson’s personal history and acknowledged that he

suffered a horrific childhood. The district court recognized that 

Robinson’s parents had been in prison, that he had been shuffled 

back and forth, and that he had learned to see drug use as normal. 

The district court added, however, that there are many people who

USCA11 Case: 21-10429 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 21-10429

have very difficult childhoods but end up making something of

themselves without choosing to break the law. This record clearly 

shows that the district court did not fail to weigh Robinson’s troubled background as Robinson alleges.

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying 

Robinson’s request for a downward variance. The district court 

noted that Robinson had a twenty-year criminal history that included previous convictions for selling drugs. The district court 

explained that Robinson had been to prison before, that he previously turned down drug treatment, and that he had committed a 

serious offense that wreaks havoc on communities. The district 

court emphasized Robinson’s criminal history, the seriousness of 

his offenses, and the deterrent effect of a guideline sentence. Finally, the district court stated that it had considered the section 

3553(a) factors and found that a sentence within the applicable 

guideline range was appropriate and sufficient but not greater than 

necessary to comply with the statutory purposes of sentencing.

Robinson identifies no factors in section 3553(a) that the district court failed to consider, nor does he provide any support for 

his assertion that the district court placed too much weight on his 

criminal history. The record leaves us with no “definite and firm 

conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment.” Shabazz, 887 F.3d at 1224. Because the district court 

abused no discretion, we affirm Robinson’s sentence.

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10429 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 4 of 4