[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-11671

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20615-RNS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MCKENZIE JEROME,

a.k.a. Jerome McKenzie, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 22, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-11671 Date Filed: 02/22/2013 Page: 1 of 4 
2

A jury found McKenzie Jerome, a Bahamian national, guilty of attempted 

unlawful re-entry into the United States after having been removed subsequent to a 

conviction for an aggravated felony, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), and 

the District Court sentenced him to prison for 75 months, an upward variance from 

the Guidelines sentence range of 24 to 30 months. He appeals his sentence as 

substantively unreasonable because the reasons the District Court gave for the 

variance were unjustified and the sentence constitutes an unwarranted disparity. 

The incident that gave rise to Jerome’s conviction occurred on August 17, 

2011, when a Coast Guard cutter stopped a vessel, 20 to 25 feet in length, traveling 

northwest in the Florida Straits. Jerome was operating the vessel. Coast Guard 

officers boarded the vessel, and inquired as to the number of people aboard. 

Jerome said there were 17. He identified himself and another, Charles Cambridge, 

as Bahamian nationals; 15 of those aboard were from Haiti. Jerome informed the 

officers that he owned the boat and that it was registered in the United States. He 

was unable to provide proof of its registration, however. The officers’ visual 

inspection of the vessel revealed several hazards that were dangerous to Jerome 

and his passengers.1

 As matters developed, the Coastguard seized the vessel and 

transported 14 of the Haitian nationals to Bahamian officials at Freeport Harbor.2

 

Jerome and Cambridge were taken to a Customs and Border Protection Office 

 1

 For example, there were only eight life jackets for 17 people aboard, the fire extinguishers were inoperable, and 

the forward cabin was dark, hot, smelled badly and lacked adequate ventilation. 2

 The remaining Haitian was hospitalized in Miami.

Case: 12-11671 Date Filed: 02/22/2013 Page: 2 of 4 
3

where they were detained for questioning. On September 7, 2011, Jerome was 

arrested on the charge for which he was subsequently convicted.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, and do so under the deferential 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S.Ct. 

586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The relevant inquiry is “whether the sentence . 

. . fails to achieve the purposes of sentencing as stated in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a).” 

Id. The § 3553(a) factors include:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and 

characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness 

of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just 

punishment for the offense; (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need to 

protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed 

educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of 

sentences available; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent 

policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to 

avoid unwanted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide 

restitution to victims.

Id. at 786 (summarizing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). The weight given to each 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) (citation omitted). 

When reviewing a sentence outside the Guidelines sentence range, we may 

take into account the degree of variance from the range; extraordinary 

circumstances are not required, however, to justify a sentence beyond the range. 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 47, 128 S.Ct. at 594-95. The court should explain why the 

variance is appropriate in a particular case, though. In the end, we may vacate a 

Case: 12-11671 Date Filed: 02/22/2013 Page: 3 of 4 
4

sentence as unreasonable only “if we are left with the 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 of reasonable 

sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 

1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). 

Jerome fails to show that the District Court abused its discretion or imposed 

a substantively unreasonable sentence. The court expressly stated that it had 

considered and weighed the appropriate sentencing factors, including the nature 

and circumstances of the offense, which involved conduct that threatened the lives 

and safety of the 16 passengers on his boat, as well as his history and 

characteristics, which included a prior alien-smuggling offense.3

 The court 

expressly found that Jerome’s case fell “outside of the heartland” of illegal re-entry 

offenses, and it noted that Jerome had not been deterred by his prior imprisonment 

for the same conduct. Based on the record, the court sufficiently explained why 

the upward variance was appropriate and the sentence was not greater than 

necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing. 

AFFIRMED.

 3

 In 2004, Jerome was sentenced to prison for 35 months for attempting to bring 11 Haitians from the Bahamas to 

the United States by boat. After serving his sentence, he was removed. 

Case: 12-11671 Date Filed: 02/22/2013 Page: 4 of 4