[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12083

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-00401-CAP-AJB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BOSTON ROUSE, 

a.k.a. Buck, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(December 23, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, HULL and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-12083 Date Filed: 12/23/2013 Page: 1 of 5 
2

After pleading guilty, Boston Rouse appeals his 108-month sentence for 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) 

and 924(a)(2). On appeal, Rouse argues that his sentence was substantively 

unreasonable. After review, we affirm.

We review the reasonableness of a sentence under the deferential abuse of 

discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 

(2007). We look first at whether the district court committed any significant 

procedural error and then at whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable 

under the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 

1190 (11th Cir. 2008).1

The abuse of discretion standard “allows a range of choice for the district 

court, so long as that choice does not constitute a clear error of judgment.” United 

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

marks omitted). The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of proving 

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

factors. Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1189.

2

 

1

Rouse does not contend that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable or point to any 

procedural error at his sentencing.

2

The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the 

history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, 

to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for 

deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed 

Case: 13-12083 Date Filed: 12/23/2013 Page: 2 of 5 
3

At sentencing, the district court calculated a criminal history category of IV 

and a total offense level of 29, which resulted in an advisory guidelines range of 

121 to 151 months. Because the advisory guidelines range was above the statutory 

maximum ten-year sentence, however, Rouse’s advisory sentence became 120 

months. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a). The district court varied downward twelve 

months, and imposed a 108-month sentence.

In explaining the chosen sentence, the district court stated that while it 

believed that Rouse deserved the statutory maximum of 120 months, the court 

agreed with Rouse that he should receive some tangible credit for having pled 

guilty and avoiding the expense of trial. The district court also noted Rouse’s 

family support, which would be integral to his success upon release. The district 

court found that Rouse’s requested three-year sentence, however, would be 

insufficient deterrence because Rouse’s previous seven-year sentence for drug and 

gun-related offenses had not deterred him from committing the instance offense. 

Accordingly, the district court felt compelled to impose a sentence greater than 

seven years. The district court concluded, after considering the § 3553(a) factors, 

that a ten percent reduction in the ten-year statutory maximum, or a 108-month 

sentence, was appropriate.

 

educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the 

Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) 

the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to 

victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Case: 13-12083 Date Filed: 12/23/2013 Page: 3 of 5 
4

Rouse has not shown that his 108-month sentence, twelve months below his 

advisory guidelines sentence of 120 months, was substantively unreasonable. This 

Court would not ordinarily expect a sentence below the advisory guidelines range 

to be unreasonable. See United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) 

(explaining that, although we do not presume that a sentence falling within the 

guidelines range is reasonable, we normally expect such a sentence to be 

reasonable).

Rouse’s sentence also satisfied the goals encompassed within § 3553(a). 

While the district court acknowledged Rouse’s guilty plea and family support as 

positive factors, it was within its discretion to give them less weight than the need 

for deterrence. See United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007) 

(stating that the weight accorded any specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to the 

sound discretion of the district court). The district court instead emphasized

Rouse’s history of criminal behavior, including a record of numerous offenses 

involving violent behavior and drug trafficking. In fact, Rouse had twice been 

convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon—most recently in 2008, a 

conviction for which he was still on probation when he committed the instant 

offense. Because Rouse’s commission of the instant offense showed that Rouse 

had not been deterred from his criminal lifestyle, it was reasonable for the district 

court to impose a sentence greater than the seven-year sentence Rouse received in 

Case: 13-12083 Date Filed: 12/23/2013 Page: 4 of 5 
5

2008. Lastly, contrary to Rouse’s argument, the nature of his offense was neither 

benign nor victimless. Rouse was a felon illegally in possession of a loaded 

firearm with an obliterated serial number, and he sold this firearm without concern 

as to the purchaser’s potential illegal aims.

Considering the seriousness of Rouse’s offense and his history of repeated 

involvement in drug and gun-related crimes, we cannot say the district court 

abused its discretion when it refused to vary any further downward. Rouse has not 

shown his 108-month sentence is unreasonable.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-12083 Date Filed: 12/23/2013 Page: 5 of 5