[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12144

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KEVIN JACKSON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 2:20-tp-14006-AMC-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-12144 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/12/2023 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12144

Before WILSON, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Jackson committed numerous supervised release violations—including use of marijuana and fleeing from and eluding a 

law enforcement officer—for which he was sentenced to 18 

months imprisonment and 18 months supervised release. On appeal he argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is not related to any proper sentencing factor and involves 

greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary to achieve 

the purposes of sentencing. 

We review the reasonableness of a sentence, including the 

imposition of supervised release, under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

On substantive reasonableness review, we may vacate the 

sentence only if we are left with the definite and firm conviction 

that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in 

weighing the § 3553(a) factors to arrive at an unreasonable sentence based on the facts of the case. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 

1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The party challenging the 

sentence bears the burden of establishing that it is unreasonable 

based on the facts of the case and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 

United States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d 1204, 1224 (11th Cir. 2018). The 

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

necessary” to comply with the purposes of § 3553(a)(2), which 

USCA11 Case: 22-12144 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/12/2023 Page: 2 of 4
22-12144 Opinion of the Court 3

include the need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, deter 

criminal conduct, and protect the public from future criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The weight given to any § 3553(a) factor 

is a matter committed to the discretion of the district court. United 

States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008). 

A departure is made under the Guidelines, while a variance 

is made under the sentencing factors in § 3553(a). United States v. 

Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291, 1316 (11th Cir. 2009). A challenge to an 

upward variance is viewed as a challenge to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Dougherty, 

754 F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2014). A district court does not abuse 

its discretion by varying upward and placing more weight on a defendant’s criminal history than on the advisory guideline range. 

United States v. Osorio-Moreno, 814 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 

2016). We have upheld large upward variances based solely on the 

defendant’s extensive criminal history. Id. at 1288; see, e.g., United 

States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1241 (11th Cir. 2009) (upholding a 

120-month statutory maximum sentence despite a guidelines range 

of 30 to 37 months for a defendant who had been arrested 

26 times). Further, an upward variance well below the statutory 

maximum sentence indicates that a sentence is reasonable. United 

States v. Riley, 995 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir. 2021). 

Here, the district court imposed a substantively reasonable 

sentence, despite upwardly varying. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In 

fashioning Jackson’s sentence, the district court noted the nature 

USCA11 Case: 22-12144 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/12/2023 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12144

and circumstances of the offense and the seriousness of the offense 

when it noted his excessive speed and elusion of law enforcement 

that Jackson directly admitted to during the final revocation and 

sentencing hearing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A). Further, the district court acknowledged Jackson’s history and characteristics 

when it mentioned his repeated and lengthy history of violations 

through marijuana use, including multiple prior violation reports 

from the United States Probation Office for marijuana use. Id. § 

3553(a)(1). Additionally, the district court explicitly stated that it 

considered the statutory purposes of sentencing, the 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a) factors, the parties’ arguments, and the information in the 

violation report. While the district court only discussed in any detail the nature, circumstances, and seriousness of Jackson’s offense 

and his history and characteristics, it was within the district court’s 

discretion to attach great weight to these factors over others, and 

it stated that it considered all the factors. Williams, 526 F.3d at 1322. 

Finally, Jackson’s sentence was below the maximum penalty, 

which this Court has stated indicates that his sentence is reasonable. Riley, 995 F.3d at 1278. Based on the foregoing, it was not unreasonable for the district court to upwardly vary and sentence 

Jackson to 18 months’ imprisonment followed by 18 months’ supervised release. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 22-12144 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/12/2023 Page: 4 of 4