[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-13537

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cr-00142-JDW-MAP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TYRONE MICHAEL BRINKLEY, 

a.k.a. Franklin Bond,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(May 21, 2014)

Before HULL, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Case: 13-13537 Date Filed: 05/21/2014 Page: 1 of 4 
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Brinkley appeals his sentence of imprisonment for 96 months 

following his guilty plea to one count of bank burglary, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and 

three counts of bank larceny, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b). Brinkley argues that the district 

court failed to explain how it applied an upward departure under the Sentencing 

Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, and that it entered a sentence that is procedurally 

and substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential standard for 

abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 596, 597 

(2007). A district court has no duty to “articulate his findings and reasoning with 

great detail.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1195 (11th Cir. 2010) (en 

banc). The district court instead must make clear that it has considered the parties’ 

arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its discretion. Rita v. United 

States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007). And the district court 

need not discuss each of the statutory factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), for sentencing. 

United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005). Even if the district 

court errs in its application of the Sentencing Guidelines, the error is harmless if 

the record establishes that the district court would have entered the same sentence 

without the error. Id.

Case: 13-13537 Date Filed: 05/21/2014 Page: 2 of 4 
3

We need not decide whether the district court erred in its upward departure

because any error was harmless. The district court alternatively varied above the 

advisory guideline range to enter the same sentence. The real issue is whether 

Brinkley’s sentence is substantively reasonable.

Brinkley’s sentence is reasonable. Even though the presentencing 

investigation report placed Brinkley’s criminal history in category VI, the vast 

majority of his criminal record went unscored, and his advisory guideline range 

was for 27 to 33 months of imprisonment. Of the 48 adult convictions listed in the 

report, only 5 counted toward Brinkley’s criminal history. Many of his convictions 

involved some form of breaking and entering, and most of those convictions 

involved banks. The district court found Brinkley’s advisory guideline range 

“shocking” and “mind-boggling.” The district court also found that Brinkley 

committed the federal offenses to which he pleaded guilty only a few weeks after 

being released from a prison in North Carolina where he had served a lengthy 

sentence that “did not have a sufficient deterrent effect on him.” That finding 

establishes that the district court considered the need for the sentence to “afford 

adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). The district 

court also made participation in a mental health program a special condition of 

Brinkley’s sentence. And Brinkley’s sentence is well below the statutory 

Case: 13-13537 Date Filed: 05/21/2014 Page: 3 of 4 
4

maximum sentence of 20 years of imprisonment. The district court did not abuse 

its discretion. We affirm Brinkley’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-13537 Date Filed: 05/21/2014 Page: 4 of 4