[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 11035 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11

- cr - 20678

- KMM

- 5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus TREVOR RANSFER, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (November 20, 2015) Before WILLIAM PRYOR , MARTIN and ANDERSON , Circui t Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-11035 Date Filed: 11/20/2015 Page: 1 of 42 Trevor Sherrod Ransfer appeals his sentence of 741months of imprisonment, which the district court imposed after the government concurred in Ransfer’s motion to vacate , 28 U.S.C. § 2255, two of his nine convictions a r i sing from his participation in a conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). The district court re sentenced Ransfer , for his seven remaining convictions, to four concurrent terms of 57 months of imprisonment for conspiring to commit a robbery that affected interstate

commerce and three co unts of robbery , id , a consecutive term of 84 months for
p ossessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violen ce, id

. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) , and two 300

- month terms for two additional count s of possessin g of a firearm, id. , to run consecutively to one another and to Ransfer’s other sentences. This
sentence, Ransfer argues , is procedural ly and substantive ly unreasonable. We affirm. We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential standard for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). “That familiar standard ‘ allows a range of choice for the district court, so long as that choice does no t constitute a clear error of judgment. ’ ” United States v. Irey , 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) ( en banc ) (quoting United States v. Frazier , 387 F.3d 1244, 1259 (11th Cir.2004) ( en banc ) ). We will not disturb the sentence unless “ we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the district

Case: 15-11035 Date Filed: 11/20/2015 Page: 2 of 43 court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case. ” Id. at 1190 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted )

. Ransfer’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. Ransfer argues that the district court failed to consider the statutory sentencing factors, but the court stated that its sentence reflect ed the “ seriousness of [Ransfer’s] original underlying criminal conduct”; Ransfer’s background and history , which contained

“ instances of violence associated with

. . . criminal behavior . . . [about which] he just never se emed to get the message” that “what he was doing was wrong”; and the need for the sentence “to deter further recividism.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court fashione d its sentence to punish Ransfer for wield ing a firearm during four robberies and for pistol whipping one victim who tried to escape , to account for Ransfer’s history of violent conduct , which included choking his sister and battering his mother and hitting his pregnant girlfriend three times with a chair, and to deter Ransfer from comm itting similar crimes in the future

. T he district court reasonably determined that sentences at the low end of the advisory range for his conspiracy and robbery offenses coupled with the mandatory sentences for hi s firearm offenses satisfied the statutory purposes of sentencing. See id. Ransfer argues that the length of his sentence suggests that the district court failed to account for the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparit ies, see id.

Case: 15-11035 Date Filed: 11/20/2015 Page: 3 of 44 § 3553(a)(6), but as the district court stat ed, Ransfer was not similarly situated to coconspirators who “admitted . . . guilt” and took “the first step towards rehabilitation or remorsefulness,” which affects how to “fashion[] a sentence for a particular defendant.” See U nited States v. Cavallo , 790 F.3d 1202, 1237 (11th Cir. 2015) ; United States v. Docampo , 573 F.3d 1091, 1101 (11th Cir. 2009 )

. The district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Ransfer to 741 months of imprisonment.
We AFFIRM Ransfer’s sentenc e . Case: 15-11035 Date Filed: 11/20/2015 Page: 4 of 4