[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12363

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-00041-MP-GRJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAYMOND ELIJAH WORTHAM, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(December 11, 2013)

Before MARCUS, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Raymond Wortham appeals his sentence that was imposed after a guilty plea 

for attempted use of interstate commerce to induce a minor to engage in sexual 

activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). On appeal, Wortham argues that the 

Case: 13-12363 Date Filed: 12/11/2013 Page: 1 of 3 
2

district court did not address or explain, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1), its 

rejection of Wortham’s mitigation argument or its reasons for imposing the

sentence that it did. After thorough review, we affirm.

We review de novo the sufficiency of the district court’s explanation under 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1), even if the defendant did not object below. United States 

v. Bonilla, 463 F.3d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court is required to 

state reasons for its particular sentence, and if the sentence is of a kind and within 

the range recommended by the Guidelines and that range exceeds 24 months, the 

reason for imposing a sentence at a particular point within that range. 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(c)(1); Bonilla, 463 F.3d at 1181. Section 3553(c)(1) applies to the district 

court’s statements “at the time of sentencing” and “in open court.” 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(c). 

A district court is not required to incant the specific language used in the 

guidelines or articulate its consideration of each individual § 3553(a) factor, so 

long as the record reflects the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. 

Bonilla, 463 F.3d at 1182. More generally, the district court should set forth 

enough to satisfy the appellate court that the court has considered the parties’ 

arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decision-making 

authority. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). The appropriateness of 

the brevity or length of a district court’s reasons for accepting or rejecting an 

Case: 13-12363 Date Filed: 12/11/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
3

argument depends upon the circumstances, leaving much to the court’s judgment. 

Id. “Where the defendant or prosecutor presents nonfrivolous reasons for 

imposing a different sentence, however, the judge will normally go further and 

explain why he has rejected those arguments. Sometimes the circumstances will 

call for a brief explanation; sometimes they will call for a lengthier explanation.” 

Id. at 357.

Here, even though the district court’s explanation for Wortham’s sentence 

was terse, the district court said that it had read the letters submitted prior to the 

sentencing hearing on Wortham’s behalf. After the district court heard substantial 

argument from both parties about the appropriate sentence and Wortham’s 

allocution, the district court determined that the mid-range guideline sentence was 

sufficient for punishment and for deterrence. The court also concluded that the PSI 

was accurate. The district court further provided that it had considered the § 

3553(a) factors in imposing sentence. On this record, Wortham has failed to show 

that the district court violated § 3553(c)(1) or committed any other significant 

procedural error.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-12363 Date Filed: 12/11/2013 Page: 3 of 3