[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-14245

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TREVOR ALEC HRUBY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-00014-AW-GRJ-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-14245 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-14245

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Trevor Hruby appeals the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his 1,440-month sentence for 4 counts of production 

of child pornography. Hruby argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court abused its discretion in assigning 

weight to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and failed to focus on the 

individualized, particularized mitigating facts of his case. 

When reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we first 

consider whether the district court committed a procedural error. 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A district court commits 

a procedural sentencing error when it imposes a sentence based on 

clearly erroneous facts, fails to calculate or improperly calculates 

the guideline range, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors, treats the 

Guidelines as mandatory, or fails to explain the chosen sentence. 

Id. While the district court must consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors, it is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly 

considered each of the factors or to discuss each of them. United 

States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2013). Instead, an 

acknowledgment by the district court that it considered the factors 

is sufficient. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1281 (11th Cir. 

2007). 

After ensuring that a sentence is procedurally sound, we 

then consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. 

The district court must impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but 

USCA11 Case: 22-14245 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023 Page: 2 of 5
22-14245 Opinion of the Court 3

not greater than necessary” to reflect the seriousness of the offense, 

promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, protect the public, and provide the defendant 

with any needed correctional treatment or training. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a)(2). It must also consider the nature and circumstances of 

the offense, the defendant’s history and characteristics, the kinds of 

sentences available, the applicable guidelines range, any pertinent 

policy statements, and the need to avoid sentencing disparities between similarly-situated defendants. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).

The weight given to each factor lies within the district 

court’s sound discretion, and it may reasonably attach great weight 

to a single factor. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d at 1327. Nevertheless, a district court abuses its discretion if it “(1) fails to afford consideration 

to relevant factors that were due significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; or (3) commits a 

clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” United 

States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted). Although we do not automatically presume 

that a sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable, we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be reasonable. United States v. 

Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008). 

As an initial matter, the argument that Hruby frames as procedural reasonableness challenges only the weight afforded to certain § 3553(a) factors, and therefore addresses only substantive reasonableness. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In any event, to the extent 

that he argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing 

USCA11 Case: 22-14245 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-14245

to consider certain § 3553(a) factors altogether, such as the need to 

avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, the court stated that it 

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and it was not required 

to specifically discuss all of the § 3553(a) factors. Turner, 474 F.3d 

at 1281. 

As to substantive reasonableness, the court did not fail to 

consider relevant factors that were due significant weight, give significant weight to an improper factor, or clearly err in considering 

the proper factors. Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189. The court stated on the 

record that it had considered the arguments set forth at sentencing, 

the PSI, and the sentencing memorandum. The record also reflects 

that the court had considered all of the mitigation and reviewed 

both the sentencing memorandum and the letters from Hruby’s 

family, which explained each mitigating factor in detail. The court 

walked through the mitigation on the record, discussing the impact 

that Hruby’s youth, his victimhood, his lack of criminal history, 

and his acceptance of responsibility had on its decision. This explanation shows that the court considered each of the mitigating factors that Hruby argues on appeal were ignored. The court further 

asserted that the severity of the offense conduct “[was] just too 

much to justify anything short of the sentence [imposed], notwithstanding that mitigation.” Doc. 51 at 2). The court stated that 

Hruby’s sexual interest in children made him a danger to society 

and expressed that, accordingly, the sentence imposed was necessary to protect the public. The court was permitted to attach 

greater weight to the seriousness of the offense conduct, which involved repeated sexual offenses against multiple children in 

USCA11 Case: 22-14245 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023 Page: 4 of 5
22-14245 Opinion of the Court 5

Hruby’s care, and to the need to protect the public, than to the mitigating evidence. See Kuhlman, 711 F.3d at 1327; (Doc. 51 at 26-27). 

Finally, Hruby’s sentence was within the guidelines recommendation, which further suggests that it was reasonable. See 

Hunt, 526 F.3d at 746. The district court did not abuse its discretion 

and Hruby’s sentence is reasonable. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-14245 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023 Page: 5 of 5