[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-12215

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:02-cr-80007-KLR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 versus

TORRANCE L. WILKINS, 

a.k.a. Rooster, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(November 29, 2016)

Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-12215 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Torrance Wilkins appeals the district court’s imposition of a 21-month 

sentence, imposed at the low end of the Guidelines range, following revocation of 

his supervised release. Wilkins asserts the court’s sentence was unreasonably 

harsh. He contends the court focused solely on his prior criminal history, and did 

not consider his improved performance on supervision. After review,1 we affirm 

Wilkins’ sentence as reasonable. 

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), a district court may, upon finding by a 

preponderance of the evidence that a defendant has violated a condition of 

supervised release, revoke the term of supervised release and impose a term of 

imprisonment after considering certain factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Section 3553(a) provides that district courts imposing a 

sentence must first consider, inter alia, (1) the nature and circumstances of the 

offense; (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant; (3) the need for the 

sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and 

provide just punishment for the offense; and (4) the kinds of sentences and 

sentencing range established by the Guidelines, and in the case of a violation of 

supervised release, the applicable Guidelines or policy statements issued by the 

 1 We review the sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release for 

reasonableness. United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir. 2006). We vacate 

a sentence only if left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a 

clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by imposing a sentence that lies outside 

the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case. United States v. Irey, 612 

F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). 

Case: 16-12215 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 2 of 4 
3

Sentencing Commission. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The weight to be given any 

particular factor under § 3553(a) is left to the sound discretion of the district court, 

absent a clear error of judgment. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th 

Cir. 2010) (en banc). 

Wilkins’ Guidelines range was 21 to 24 months’ imprisonment, and the 

court was not unreasonable in imposing a 21-month sentence. See United States v. 

Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining while we do not 

automatically presume a within-Guidelines sentence to be reasonable, we

ordinarily expect such a result). While the district court did not explicitly refer to 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) while articulating its reasoning for its choice of sentence, the 

record shows the court considered several of the sentencing factors under the 

statute, specifically, the need to promote respect for the law and the history and 

characteristics of the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court was 

concerned with Wilkins’ prior criminal history which included 168 arrests. The 

record showed that while on release he returned to committing the same types of 

crimes that he had been committing before serving his prison sentence in the 

present case. Wilkins’ underlying conviction was for distribution of cocaine, and 

he was convicted while on supervised release of possession of cocaine. Wilkins’ 

21-month sentence, imposed at the low end of the Guidelines range was 

Case: 16-12215 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 3 of 4 
4

substantively reasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors. 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 16-12215 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 4 of 4