[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-13153

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00361-ACC-DAB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES T. PARKER, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

 (February 12, 2013)

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Appellant James Parker appeals his 48-month sentence, 24 months above the 

guidelines range, that the district court imposed after he pled guilty to theft of 

Case: 12-13153 Date Filed: 02/12/2013 Page: 1 of 5 
2

government money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. On appeal, Parker argues that 

his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district 

court, in discussing only the fact that he dismembered his mother’s body after her 

death, failed to explain adequately its justification for the upward variance, and 

failed to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. 

We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a “deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591, 

169 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007). Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, we will not 

reverse a district court so long as the district court’s ruling does not constitute a 

clear error of judgment. United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1259 (11th Cir. 

2004). The party challenging the sentence has the burden to establish that the 

sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Turner, 626 F.3d 566, 573 (11th Cir. 

2010). In reviewing a sentencing decision, we determine, first, whether the district 

court committed any “significant procedural error,” and second, whether the 

sentence was “substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.” 

Id. 

We must consider several factors to determine if a sentence is procedurally 

reasonable, including whether the district court properly calculated the guidelines 

range, improperly treated the guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the 

§ 3553(a) factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failed to 

Case: 12-13153 Date Filed: 02/12/2013 Page: 2 of 5 
3

adequately explain its chosen sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597. 

The district court must “adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for 

meaningful appellate review.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If the 

district court determines that a sentence outside the guidelines range is appropriate, 

it should explain why the variance is appropriate and the “justification for the 

variance must be sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.” 

United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1186-87 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (internal 

quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1813 (2011).

After determining that the sentence is procedurally reasonable, this court

must consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 

128 S. Ct. at 597. A sentence is substantively reasonable if, under the totality of 

the circumstances, it achieves the purposes of § 3553(a). United States v. 

Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008). While the district court must 

provide a sufficiently compelling justification for the variance, this Court “may not 

presume that a sentence outside the guidelines is unreasonable and must give due 

deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, 

justify the extent of the variance.” Irey, 612 F.3d. at 1187 (internal quotation

marks omitted). This Court will only reverse due to a variance if it has a “definite 

and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in 

weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range 

Case: 12-13153 Date Filed: 02/12/2013 Page: 3 of 5 
4

of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Shaw, 

560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than 

necessary to comply with the purposes” listed in § 3553(a)(2), including the need 

to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just 

punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). In imposing a particular sentence, the court must also 

consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics 

of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the applicable guideline range, 

the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid 

unwanted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. 

§ 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7). 

We conclude from the record that Parker’s 48-month sentence is reasonable. 

The district court committed no procedural error. The court sufficiently explained

the reasoning behind the sentence imposed to allow for meaningful appellate 

review. Gall, 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S. Ct. at 597. Furthermore, the court provided a 

sufficiently compelling justification for the upward variance. Irey, 612 F.3d at 

1187. The court explained that Parker’s mutilation of his mother’s body in order to 

continue receiving her social security checks after her death merited the upward 

variance. As to substantive unreasonableness, Parker argues that the district court 

Case: 12-13153 Date Filed: 02/12/2013 Page: 4 of 5 
5

improperly considered only two of the § 3553(a) factors. However, the court 

explicitly stated that it had considered all of the sentencing factors in addition to 

the underlying facts of the case. The weight given to each § 3553(a) factor is “a 

matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” United States v. 

Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Parker has not met his burden to show an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we 

affirm the sentence as procedurally and substantively reasonable.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-13153 Date Filed: 02/12/2013 Page: 5 of 5