[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

______ __________________ No. 14

- 15324 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D .C. Docket No. 2:14

- cr - 00010

- SPC

- CM

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
versus A LFRED W. LENZ ,

Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

________________________ (November 24, 2015) Before MARTIN, J ORDAN, and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Alfred W. Lenz appeal s the district court’s decision to impose a total
sente nce of 57 months after he pled guilty to three counts of wire fraud in violation

Case: 14-15324 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 1 of 52 of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Mr. Lenz challenge s the district court’s decision not to reduce his offense level f or acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
3E1.1 , and its denial of his request for a variance

. He also argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. For the reasons which follow, we affirm

. I We assume the parties are fami liar with the background of this case. Thus, we summarize the facts and proceedings only insofar as necessary to provide context for our decision. A grand jury indicted Mr. Lenz on three counts of wire fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 1343. After Mr. Lenz pled guilty , and p rior to sentencing, a probation officer prepared a presenten ce investigation report which stated that , from 2007 to 2010, Mr. Lenz engaged in 87 fraudulent check transactions by depositing checks from his employer into the account of a company he controlled . He used the $2,380,465.11 gained from this illegal activi ty to buy a home in Michigan and otherwis e fund his lifestyle. 1 At sentencing, the district court considered Mr. Lenz’s role as a father and husband. It also took into account that Mr. Lenz was a decorated Army combat veteran who suffered from health problems . It weighed those factors against how
Mr. Lenz had abused the trust of his employer and affected the lives of his

1 The indictment included a forfeiture count for the Michigan home and the proceeds of the fraud. Case: 14-15324 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 2 of 53 coworkers, and sentenced him to 57 months of imprisonment, the low end of the advisory sentencing range of 57 to 7 1 months

. The district court also ordered the forfeiture of $ 2, 380,465.11

— the proceeds of the fraud

— and the Michigan home. In sentencing Mr. Lenz, the district court ruled that he did not merit an acceptance of respon sibility reduction under § 3 E1.1

. It also denied Mr. Lenz’s request for a variance.
II Mr. Lenz argues that he accepted responsibility for his offenses and therefore merited a reduction in his sentence. A district court’s evaluation of a defendant’s assessment o f responsibility under § 3E1.1 is entitled to great deference, and we review it only for clear error. See United States v. Moriarty , 429 F.3d 1012, 1022 (11th Cir. 2005). A district court’s determination that a defendant is not entitled to a § 3E1.1 adjustment therefore will not be set aside “unless the facts in the record clearly e stablish that the defendant has accepted responsibility.” Id. at 1022

– 23. The district cou rt found that the amount of asset s Mr. Lenz was willing to surrender to the government

— $290,000

— paled in comparison to the amount he had stolen . The district court emph asized that Mr. Lenz lacked sincerity , as he did
not do everything pos sible to make his victims whole. As the district court saw things, Mr. Lenz used the $290,000 as a “bargaining chip” to keep his wife’s

Case: 14-15324 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 3 of 54 interest in their Michigan home , and th at did not constitute good faith or amount to an acceptance of responsibility for his wrongdoing. Although Mr. Lenz cooperated with the authorities to some extent , the district court did not clearly err in denying him an acceptance of responsibility adjus tment. See United States v. Paslay , 971 F.2d 667, 675 (11th Cir. 1992).
Mr. Lenz also argues that the district c ourt erred in denying his request for a downward variance, thereby rendering his total 57

- month sentence substantively unreasonable. We revi ew the “‘ substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse of discretion standard,’ based on the ‘ totality of the circumstances. ’ ” United States v. Beckles , 565 F.3d 832, 845 (11th Cir. 2009) ( quoting United States v. Pugh , 515 F.3d 1179, 1190

– 91 (11th Cir. 2008)). We will reverse only when “left with definite and firm conviction that the district court committed clear error of judgment in weighing the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) by arriving at a sentence that lies outs ide the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Flanders , 752 F.3d 1317, 1339 (11th Cir. 2014). As the party challenging the sentence , Mr. Lenz bears the burden to show that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors.
See United States v. Tome , 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). The district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider factors that Mr. Lenz believed were due more significant weight, giving an imp roper or

Case: 14-15324 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 4 of 55 irrelevant factor significant weight, or committing a clear error of judgment in balancing the proper factors. See United States v. Irey , 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010)

. Instead, the court looked to the manner in which Mr. Lenz was trusted by his company and how he “severely abused that trust” during a period that spanned f our years and involved 87 checks, seven wire transactions , and hundreds of transfers . T he total sent ence, falling at the bottom of the advisory guidelines
range for a fraud scheme resulting in over $2 million in stolen funds , was objectively reasonable.
III We affirm the district court’s 57

- month sentence for Mr. Lenz

. AFFIRMED. Case: 14-15324 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 Page: 5 of 5