[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12434

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

QUENTIN CEPHUS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cr-00104-PGB-DCI-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-12434 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 07/29/2024 Page: 1 of 10
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12434

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Quentin Cephus appeals his sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the district court abused its discretion when it ran the 

sentence consecutively to the sentence in a different revocation 

case and rejected his request for the sentence to run concurrently.

He also argues that the facts in the presentence investigation report

and an analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors compelled a sentence below his advisory guidelines range of 21–24 months. Because the district court considered relevant § 3553(a) factors, the

sentence is at the low end of the guidelines range, and the district 

court was permitted to impose a consecutive sentence, we affirm.

I

A

Mr. Cephus was serving two terms of supervised release in 

the Middle District of Florida—one in the Orlando Division in a 

case that was transferred from the District of Maryland and is the 

basis of this case, and one in the Tampa Division. Here is how 

those two cases came about.

In February of 2013, Mr. Cephus pled guilty in the District 

of Maryland to distribution of a substance containing cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). After the probation office prepared 

a PSI detailing his personal history and characteristics, the 

USCA11 Case: 23-12434 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 07/29/2024 Page: 2 of 10
23-12434 Opinion of the Court 3

Maryland district court sentenced him to 60 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. That conviction underlies the current appeal.

Subsequently, in March of 2016, while serving his sentence 

in Tampa for the Maryland conviction, Mr. Cephus pled guilty to 

forcibly assaulting a Bureau of Prison official in violation of 18 

U.S.C § 111 (a)(1) and (b). See United States v. Cephus, No. 8:16-CR133-T-33JSS, 2017 WL 1251578 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2017) (“Tampa 

Case”) The Tampa district court sentenced him to 41 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The supervised 

release term for that case began in June of 2019.

Then, in July of 2020, Mr. Cephus’ supervision from the 

Maryland case was transferred to the Orlando Division of the Middle District of Florida. That meant that Mr. Cephus had two supervised release terms that he was serving in the Middle District of 

Florida.

B

Mr. Cephus has violated the terms of his supervised release 

on seventeen occasions. Although the details of the first twelve

violations are not necessary to determine this appeal, a brief history 

of the violations is helpful.

In November of 2020, the Orlando probation office alleged 

that Mr. Cephus violated his supervised release in the Orlando Division. That violation petition was ultimately withdrawn. Mr. Cephus admitted to a separate violation and was restored to supervised release pending sentencing.

USCA11 Case: 23-12434 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 07/29/2024 Page: 3 of 10
4 Opinion of the Court 23-12434

The following month, in December of 2020, Mr. Cephus violated his supervised release three times. Then, in May of 2021, 

the district court reinstated the term of supervision after finding 

that Mr. Cephus had committed two of the violations.

In September of 2021, the Orlando probation office again 

filed a petition seeking issuance of a warrant and revocation of supervised release. It alleged that Mr. Cephus violated the terms of 

his supervised release by committing four new acts of criminal conduct. A superseding petition in October of 2021 further alleged that 

he committed three additional acts of criminal conduct. Although 

the Orlando probation office filed the petitions seeking a warrant 

and revocation of Mr. Cephus’ supervised release regarding those

seven violations, the Tampa district court adjudicated the violations before the Orlando district court. As a result, the Orlando

district court dismissed these violations and Mr. Cephus remained 

on supervised release.

Prior to Mr. Cephus’ final revocation hearing before the Orlando district court in this case, the Tampa district court sentenced 

him to 18 months’ imprisonment for repeated violations of his 

term of supervised release, to run consecutively with any sentence 

yet to be imposed in the Orlando case (the “Tampa sentence”). 

That sentence is not at issue in this appeal.

At the final revocation hearing before the Orlando district 

court in this case, Mr. Cephus admitted to five violations, the violations that concern this appeal, as he had earlier at a hearing before

the magistrate judge. Those violations include loitering and 

USCA11 Case: 23-12434 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 07/29/2024 Page: 4 of 10
23-12434 Opinion of the Court 5

prowling, unlawful possession of a controlled substance, possession of methamphetamine, possession of cocaine, and possession 

of drug paraphernalia.

The Orlando district court adopted the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation after Mr. Cephus admitted to the five 

violations. Because the highest-grade violation was a Grade B violation, and Mr. Cephus had a criminal history category of VI based 

on 21 criminal history points, the court calculated an advisory 

guideline range of 21 to 24 months’ imprisonment.

The district court noted that it had reviewed the history of 

the case and evaluated Mr. Cephus’ multiple violations of the terms 

of his supervised release. The probation office recommended that 

Mr. Cephus be sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment to run concurrently with the Tampa sentence with no additional term of supervised release to follow. Mr. Cephus requested the same sentence. He explained that his childhood was unstable and informed 

the court that his wife passed away from cancer during his incarceration. The government also recommended a sentence of 18 

months’ imprisonment without supervision to follow, arguing that 

Mr. Cephus was not a good candidate for supervised release given 

his multiple violations. The government, however, requested that 

the sentence run consecutively to Mr. Cephus’ Tampa sentence.

In his allocution, Mr. Cephus asked for a “fresh start” and 

accepted responsibility for his actions. After hearing from the parties, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, as 

well as the advisory guidelines, when crafting Mr. Cephus’

USCA11 Case: 23-12434 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 07/29/2024 Page: 5 of 10
6 Opinion of the Court 23-12434

sentence. The court noted that it had “no doubt” that Mr. Cephus 

had a “very difficult” upbringing—he did not meet his father until 

age 9; he was raised by various family members; his mother, who 

struggled with substance abuse, was severely mentally and physically abusive towards him; and his maternal brother passed away 

in early childhood due to complications related to his mother’s 

drug use during pregnancy—and had a problem with drug addiction.

The district court explained that it had previously sentenced 

Mr. Cephus to time served in 2021 to give him a “fresh start” but 

he continued to violate the terms of his supervised release. Despite

Mr. Cephus’ objection to the imposition of a consecutive sentence

and based on the repetitive nature of the violations that occurred 

in two different divisions of the Middle District, the court thought 

that Mr. Cephus needed to serve both of his sentences. Citing to 

specific and general deterrence, as well as protecting the public and 

providing Mr. Cephus with correctional treatment and a fair sentence, the court sentenced Mr. Cephus to 21 months’ imprisonment—the low end of the advisory guideline range—to run consecutive to his Tampa sentence. It did not impose a term of supervised release to follow.

II

On appeal, Mr. Cephus argues that the 21-month consecutive sentence is unreasonable and that the “upward variance” is unwarranted. He contends that an 18-month concurrent sentence, 

which is three months below the bottom of the advisory guideline 

USCA11 Case: 23-12434 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 07/29/2024 Page: 6 of 10
23-12434 Opinion of the Court 7

range, would be a reasonable sentence to accomplish all the goals 

of § 3553. He claims that, ultimately, he ended up with a total sentence of 39 months based on how each judge structured his particular sentence.

The government responds that Mr. Cephus has not shown 

that the district court abused its discretion and erred, either procedurally or substantively, in imposing his sentence. The government says that Mr. Cephus wrongly argues that the sentence exceeds the guidelines range because his 21-month sentence was at 

the bottom of the advisory guidelines range. Additionally, it argues 

that Mr. Cephus “cannot simply add to that sentence his 18-month 

sentence for violating the conditions of his supervised release for 

his separate federal assault conviction” in the Tampa case.

A

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence 

“under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “A district court abuses its discretion 

when 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) (internal citations omitted). Moreover, “the party challenging a sentence has the burden of showing 

that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the entire record, the 

§ 3553(a) factors, and the substantial deference afforded sentencing 

USCA11 Case: 23-12434 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 07/29/2024 Page: 7 of 10
8 Opinion of the Court 23-12434

courts.” United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th 

Cir. 2015).

Under § 3553(a)(2), a district court must impose a sentence 

that is “sufficient, but 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. The court must also consider, among other factors, “the 

nature and circumstances of the offense,’’ the history and characteristics of the defendant, the sentences available, the applicable 

Guideline range, “any pertinent policy statement issued by the sentencing Commission,” and “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities” among similarly situated defendants. See

§ 3553(a)(1)(3)-(6).

The weight given to each factor generally lies within the district court’s sound discretion, and it may reasonably attach great 

weight to a single factor. See United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 

1321, 1327 (11th Cir. 2013). For example, “[p]lacing substantial 

weight on a defendant’s criminal record is entirely consistent with 

§ 3553(a) because five of the factors it requires a court to consider 

are related to criminal history.” Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1263. A 

sentence does not become unreasonable merely because the district court did not accept the recommendation of one or both parties. See United States v. Valnor, 451 F.3d 744, 745–46, 751–52 (11th 

Cir. 2006).

USCA11 Case: 23-12434 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 07/29/2024 Page: 8 of 10
23-12434 Opinion of the Court 9

Ultimately, “[t]he district court is not required to explicitly 

address each of the § 3553(a) factors or all of the mitigating evidence.” United States v. Taylor, 997 F.3d 1348, 1354 (11th Cir. 2021). 

“Rather, an acknowledgement by the district court that it has considered the defendant’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors will 

suffice.” United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936, 938 (11th Cir. 2007).

We ordinarily expect a sentence within the guidelines range to be 

reasonable and “a sentence imposed well below the statutory maximum penalty is an indicator of a reasonable sentence.” United 

States v. Stanley, 739 F.3d 633, 656 (11th Cir. 2014).

B

The Sentencing Guidelines recommend that a term of imprisonment resulting from a supervised release violation “be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment 

being served [that] resulted from the conduct that is the basis of the 

revocation of probation or supervised release.” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). 

Further, we have held that “[w]hether these terms [are] to be consecutive or concurrent [is] a question that 18 U.S.C. § 3584 entrusts 

to the court’s discretion.” United States v. Quinones, 136 F.3d 1293, 

1295 (11th Cir. 1998).

Mr. Cephus’ sentence is not substantively unreasonable. 

The district court accounted for his pattern of supervised release 

violations and chose not to impose a further term of supervised release to follow. Additionally, it was permitted to attach greater 

weight to his repetitive violations than to the mitigating evidence. 

Mr. Cephus’ sentence, moreover, was within the advisory

USCA11 Case: 23-12434 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 07/29/2024 Page: 9 of 10
10 Opinion of the Court 23-12434

guidelines range, which further suggests that it was reasonable. 

The consecutive nature of the sentence was also in accordance 

with the recommendation in § 7B1.3(f) of the Sentencing Guidelines and was within the district court’s discretion. See Quinones, 136 

F.3d at 1295. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), “for the same reasons 

that the district court’s sentence[] w[as] reasonable . . . the decision 

to impose consecutive federal sentences was well within the district court’s discretion.” United States v. Gomez, 955 F.3d 1250, 1258 

n.6 (11th Cir. 2020).

IV

We affirm the district court’s 21-month consecutive sentence following the revocation of Mr. Cephus’ supervised release.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-12434 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 07/29/2024 Page: 10 of 10