[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13420

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TERRANCE PAUL SNOW, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00403-VMC-AAS-3

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-13420 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 10/01/2024 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13420

Before JORDAN, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After violating the terms of his probation, Snow was 

sentenced to 37-months’ imprisonment for his role as the getaway 

driver in an armed robbery. Snow now appeals, arguing that his 

sentence is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. 

Because we find no error in the district court’s sentence, we affirm.

I.

In 2021, Snow pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit Hobbs 

Act robbery. The district court determined a Guidelines range of 

37 to 46 months’ imprisonment, but granted the prosecution’s 

motion for a four-level downward departure based on Snow’s

substantial assistance. This departure resulted in a range of 24 to 

30 months’ imprisonment. But the district court went substantially 

below even that adjusted range, sentencing Snow to 60 months’ 

probation. 

Within two years, Snow violated the terms of his probation, 

possessing a gun and pointing it at other patrons in a bar. The 

district court revoked his probation. For resentencing, the court 

calculated a Guidelines range of 4 to 10 months’ imprisonment, 

based on Snow’s grade of probation violation (Grade B) and 

criminal history category (I). The district court recognized that this

range was a result of the court’s below-Guidelines, probationary

sentence at Snow’s original sentencing hearing. Because the court 

did not consider this range adequate given the seriousness of the 

USCA11 Case: 23-13420 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 10/01/2024 Page: 2 of 6
23-13420 Opinion of the Court 3

underlying crime and subsequent probation violation, it

determined that an above-Guidelines sentence was appropriate. 

The court asked Snow’s probation officer whether it was allowed 

to impose a sentence consistent with the 37- to 46-month 

Guidelines range from Snow’s original sentencing hearing. After 

receiving confirmation that a 37-month sentence would be proper, 

the district court sentenced Snow to 37 months’ imprisonment. 

II.

This Court reviews the reasonableness of a sentence for an 

abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The 

burden of establishing the unreasonableness of the sentence lies 

with the defendant. United States v. Boone, 97 F.4th 1331, 1338–39 

(11th Cir. 2024). When a defendant raises an argument regarding 

the reasonableness of his sentence for the first time on appeal, 

however, our review is for plain error only. Id. at 1339. 

III.

Snow raises two issues on appeal. First, he argues that his 

sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court 

miscalculated his Guidelines range. Second, he argues that the 

sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. 

A.

The district court did not procedurally err. Because Snow 

did not raise this objection in the district court, this Court reviews 

only for plain error. To show plain error, Snow must show (1) an 

error that (2) is plain, (3) and affects his substantial rights. United 

USCA11 Case: 23-13420 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 10/01/2024 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 23-13420

States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). If all three 

of these conditions are met, we consider whether the error 

seriously affects “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of 

judicial proceedings.” Id. (quotation omitted).

The district court correctly calculated Snow’s Guidelines 

range for his post-revocation sentence as 4 to 10 months’ 

imprisonment. The court noted, however, that the range would 

have been higher if it had “stuck with the Guidelines” at Snow’s 

original sentencing hearing, rather than giving him a sentence of 

probation. And due to the seriousness of Snow’s probation 

violation and his original offense, the court determined that an

above-Guidelines sentence was warranted. After receiving 

confirmation from Snow’s probation officer that it was allowed to

impose a sentence consistent with the 37- to 46-month range from 

the original sentencing hearing, the court imposed a sentence of 37 

months’ imprisonment. Snow argues that the district court erred 

in considering the 37- to 46- month Guidelines range from Snow’s 

original sentencing hearing. Snow contends that, because the 

district court granted the prosecution’s motion for a four-level 

downward departure at the original sentencing hearing, the court 

should have instead considered the 24- to 30-month post-departure 

range. Snow claims that—in considering the pre-departure 

range—the court relied on “erroneous” information. 

But Snow’s arguments are without merit. The only 

Guidelines range the court was required to consider was the 4- to 

10- month resentencing range. The court considered this range 

USCA11 Case: 23-13420 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 10/01/2024 Page: 4 of 6
23-13420 Opinion of the Court 5

and explained in detail why it chose to deviate from it. Snow 

cannot show plain error because there is no binding authority 

holding that a district court must consider the post-downward 

departure Guidelines range when imposing a sentence after 

revocation of probation. See United States v. Carpenter, 803 F.3d 

1224, 1238–40 (11th Cir. 2015).

B.

Snow also challenges his sentence as substantively 

unreasonable. We will not consider a sentence substantively 

unreasonable unless “we are left with the definite and firm 

conviction that the district court committed a clear error of 

judgment in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors” to arrive at a 

sentence outside the Guidelines range. United States v. Riley, 995 

F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir. 2021) (alteration adopted) (quotation 

omitted). These factors include “the nature and circumstances of 

the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.” 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Courts may also consider the need for the 

sentence “‘to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote 

respect for the law,’ ‘to provide just punishment for the offense,’ 

‘to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,’ and ‘to protect 

the public from further crimes of the defendant.’” Riley, 995 F.3d 

at 1278–79 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)). District courts have 

discretion in weighing these factors. Id. at 1279.

Contrary to Snow’s argument, the district court did not 

focus on punishment “to the exclusion of all other factors.” The 

district court considered the seriousness of Snow’s probation 

USCA11 Case: 23-13420 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 10/01/2024 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 23-13420

violation and its relation to the underlying robbery offense, which 

also involved a gun. The court emphasized the need to punish 

Snow for his actions, promote respect for the law, and protect the 

public. And although Snow argues that the district court placed 

too much weight on the need for punishment, courts have 

discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors. Id. Snow’s 37-month 

sentence—far below the 20-year statutory maximum—was not 

substantively unreasonable. 

* * *

Because Snow’s sentence was neither procedurally nor 

substantively unreasonable, we AFFIRM. 

USCA11 Case: 23-13420 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 10/01/2024 Page: 6 of 6