[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 16

- 16484 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:16

- cr - 60095

- BB

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus JON LEE SABOURIN, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (July 21, 2017) Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JORDAN, Cir cuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-16484 Date Filed: 07/21/2017 Page: 1 of 32 Jon Lee Sabourin appeals the substantive reasonableness of his 121

- month
sentence , imposed after he pled guilty to di stribution of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) , (b)(1). Mr. Sabourin argues that the d istrict
court erred because his sentence was “ greater than necessary” to achieve the sentencing goals of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

. Upon review, we affirm. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38 , 4 1 (2007)

. A sentence falls within “ a range o f choice for the district court, s o long as that choice does not constitute a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Frazier , 387 F.3d 1244, 1259 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (citation omitted)

. Our review of a substantive reasonableness challenge entails “examining the totality of the circumstances, including an inquiry into whether the statutory factors in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) support the sentence in question.” U nited States v. Gonzalez , 550 F.3d 1319, 1323

– 24 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). The district court’s acknowledgment that it has considered the defendant’ s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors will generally suffice , and “ [w] e w ill defer to the district court’ s judgment regarding the weight given to the § 3553(a) factors unless the district court has made ‘a clear error of judgment’ and has imposed ‘ a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case. ’”

Case: 16-16484 Date Filed: 07/21/2017 Page: 2 of 33 Gonzalez , 550 F.3d at 1324 (citation omitted). T he district court need not discuss or state each § 3553(a) factor explicitly. See United States v. Scott , 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005)

. The district court’s sentence here was not unreasonable

. The court explicitly took into account certain § 3553(a) factors it believed justified the sentence imposed. See Tr. of Sentencing Hearing, D.E. 6 0 at 22

– 23

. The court emphasized that the sentence reflected a need to promote respect for the law and the seriousness of this offense , considered the Sentencing Commission’s report , and reviewed an expert’s report concluding Mr. Sabourin fell “ in the low

- risk range for the exp ression of a sexual contact offense with a juvenile

. ” Id

. The district court,
moreover, varied downward slightly and gave Mr. Sabourin a sentence below the initial guideline range of 151

– 188 months

. Mr. Sabourin offers no argument for why his sentence w as unreasonable, other than a conclusory statement that the sentence was too harsh. See Appellant’s Br. at 12. Given the record before us, there is no basis to disturb the district court’s
sentence
. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-16484 Date Filed: 07/21/2017 Page: 3 of 3