[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-15568

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-20468-UU-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

VILMA ALONSO, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 18, 2018)

Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 17-15568 Date Filed: 07/18/2018 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Vilma Maria Alonso appeals her 24-month sentence for conspiracy to 

defraud the United States and to receive health care kickbacks in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 371. She contends her sentence was substantively unreasonable. After 

review,1 we affirm. 

The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than 

necessary to comply with the purposes” listed in § 3553(a)(2), including the need 

to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just 

punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from the 

defendant’s future criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The court must 

also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and 

characteristics of the defendant. Id. § 3553(a)(1).

The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound 

discretion of the district court. United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 

2007). A court can abuse its discretion when it (1) fails to consider relevant factors 

that were due significant weight, (2) gives an improper or irrelevant factor 

significant weight, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment by balancing the 

proper factors unreasonably. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 

2010) (en banc). Moreover, a district court’s unjustified reliance on any one 

 1

 We review the reasonableness of a sentence under the deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The party who challenges the sentence 

bears the burden to show the sentence is unreasonable in light of the record and the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). 

Case: 17-15568 Date Filed: 07/18/2018 Page: 2 of 4 
3

§ 3553(a) factor may be indicative of a substantively unreasonable sentence. 

United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Alonso’s sentence is substantively reasonable. The district court did not fail 

to consider any relevant factors that were due significant weight, give an improper 

or irrelevant factor significant weight, or commit a clear error of judgment. The 

court heard Alonso’s arguments about her relatively minor role in the offense, her 

lack of criminal history, and her sufferings with physical and mental health. The 

court agreed with the Government there was nothing in particular about Alonso’s 

circumstances justifying a sentence of home confinement, and a sentence of home 

confinement or supervised release would not sufficiently reflect the seriousness of 

the offense under § 3553(a). The need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of 

the offense was not an irrelevant or inappropriate factor since it is a sentencing 

factor accounted for in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). Additionally, Alonso’s 

sentence is at the bottom of the Guidelines range of 24-30 months and well below 

the statutory maximum of 60 months. See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 

1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating that a sentence imposed well below the 

statutory maximum is an indication of its reasonableness); United States v. Hunt, 

526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining although we do not presume that a 

sentence falling within the Guidelines range is reasonable, we ordinarily expect 

Case: 17-15568 Date Filed: 07/18/2018 Page: 3 of 4 
4

such a sentence to be reasonable). Accordingly, we conclude the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in sentencing Alonso to 24 months.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-15568 Date Filed: 07/18/2018 Page: 4 of 4