[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10854

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUSTIN ROBERT GERTHOFFER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cr-00097-LCB-HNJ-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-10854 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10854

Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

Justin Gerthoffer appeals his sentence of 71 months for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. Gerthoffer argues that his 

sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable because 

the district court failed to adequately explain the sentence or that it 

had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Gerthoffer also argues that the district court erred in applying a four-level increase 

pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because he

didn’t possess the firearm in connection with another felony offense. 

I.

Because Gerthoffer didn’t object to the procedural unreasonableness of his sentence, we review his challenge now for plain 

error. United States v. Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d 816, 821 (11th Cir. 

2014). To establish plain error, the appellant must show that: “(1) 

an error occurred; (2) the error was plain; (3) it affected his substantial rights; and (4) it seriously affected the fairness of the judicial 

proceedings.” Id. at 822. For us to correct a plain sentencing error, 

the defendant must establish that there is a reasonable probability 

that, but for the error, he would have received a lesser sentence. 

United States v. Arias-Izquierdo, 449 F.3d 1168, 1190 (11th Cir. 

2006). If a defendant satisfies the first three prongs of the plain error 

test, we have the authority to correct the plain errors but are not 

USCA11 Case: 22-10854 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022 Page: 2 of 6
22-10854 Opinion of the Court 3

required to do so. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 735–36 

(1993).

The district court is not required to discuss or explicitly state 

that it considered each of the § 3553 factors. United States v. 

Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2013). An acknowledgement that it considered them is sufficient. United States v. Turner, 

474 F.3d 1265, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007). Similarly, a district court 

“need not exhaustively analyze every factor.” United States v. 

Cook, 998 F.3d 1180, 1184 (11th Cir. 2021). We have held that although the district court failed “to explicitly articulate that it had 

considered the § 3553(a) factors,” a sentence can still be reasonable 

if the court “consider[ed] a number of the sentencing factors” “by 

virtue of the court’s consideration of [the defendant’s] objections 

and his motion for a downward departure.” United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936, 944 (11th Cir. 2007). 

We examine the substantive reasonableness of a sentence 

“in light of the totality of the circumstances and the § 3353(a) factors.” United States v. Trailer, 827 F.3d 933, 936 (11th Cir. 2016). 

“The party challenging a sentence has the burden of showing that 

the sentence is unreasonable in light of the entire record, the 

§ 3553(a) factors, and the substantial deference afforded sentencing 

courts.” United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th 

Cir. 2015). We will vacate the defendant’s 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 § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of 

USCA11 Case: 22-10854 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 22-10854

reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” Trailer, 827 

F.3d at 936 (quotation marks omitted). Appellate courts may, but 

are not required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness for sentences within the guideline range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007).

Gerthoffer’s argument that the district court procedurally 

erred by failing to establish that it considered the § 3553(a) factors 

does not survive plain-error review. The court arguably erred by 

failing to acknowledge a consideration of the § 3553(a) factors 

when issuing the sentence. Turner, 474 F.3d at 1281; cf. Rita v. 

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007) (applying a presumption of 

reasonableness for within-Guidelines ranges and affirming a “brief 

but legally sufficient” statement of reasons at sentencing). The 

court implicitly considered the factors, however, in its consideration of Gerthoffer’s objection to the four-level enhancement, 

which turned on whether Gerthoffer possessed a firearm in furtherance of another felony and required some consideration of the nature and the circumstances of the offense. Moreover, even if there 

was an error and that error was plain, Gerthoffer did not establish 

that there was a reasonable probability that but for the court failing 

to consider the § 3553(a) factors, he would have been given a different sentence. Arias-Izquierdo, 449 F.3d at 1190. 

Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion 

and issue a substantively unreasonable sentence. The district court 

properly calculated the guideline range, and because the sentence 

USCA11 Case: 22-10854 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022 Page: 4 of 6
22-10854 Opinion of the Court 5

was within that guideline range, this Court may presume it to be 

reasonable. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

II.

When reviewing the district court’s findings with respect to 

guidelines issues, we consider legal issues de novo, factual findings 

for clear error, and the court’s application of the Guidelines to the 

facts with due deference, which is akin to clear-error review. 

United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010). A

factual finding cannot be clearly erroneous when the factfinder is 

choosing between two permissible views of the evidence. United 

States v. Saingerard, 621 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting 

Arias-Izquierdo, 448 F.3d at 1278).

The Guidelines provide for a four-level enhancement, or an 

automatic increase to level 18 if the resulting offense level is below 

18, if the defendant possessed the firearm or ammunition “in connection with another felony offense,” or transferred or possessed 

any firearm or ammunition with the knowledge, intent, or reason 

to believe that it would be used or possessed in connect with another felony offense. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The phrase “another felony offense” is defined as “any offense (federal, state, or 

local) punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than one 

year, whether or not the defendant was charged with that offense.” 

United States v. Smith, 480 F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir. 2007). The 

firearm need not directly facilitate the underlying offense to be possessed “in connection with” the offense. United States v. Rhind, 

289 F.3d 690, 695 (11th Cir. 2002).

USCA11 Case: 22-10854 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 22-10854

The district court did not clearly err by finding that Gerthoffer possessed the firearm in connection with another felony offense. Because Gerthoffer does not contest that assault is a felony—and it was plausible that Gerthoffer was not acting in selfdefense—it cannot be clearly erroneous that the district court 

found that he possessed the firearm in connection with another felony offense. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 22-10854 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022 Page: 6 of 6