[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15517

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:00-cr-00505-CC-GGB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

STEPHEN JOHN KONTOES, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(October 21, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Stephen Kontoes appeals his below-guideline, 18-month sentence, imposed 

after he violated the terms of his supervised release. Kontoes argues that this 

Case: 14-15517 Date Filed: 10/21/2015 Page: 1 of 7 
2

sentence was substantively unreasonable in light of his mental health problems, the 

time he had already served, and the length of time he did comply with the terms of 

his supervised release. After careful consideration, we affirm.

I.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Hayes, 762 F.3d 1300, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). In 

conducting that review, we consider the totality of the facts and circumstances. 

United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1327 (11th Cir. 2013). Our own 

judgment should not be substituted for the district court’s, “even though we would 

have gone the other way had it been our call.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 

1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation omitted). The party challenging 

the sentence carries the burden of establishing unreasonableness. Kuhlman, 711 

F.3d at 1326. 

A district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release and impose a 

sentence of imprisonment if it finds that the defendant violated a condition of his 

release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In fashioning a sentence, the court must consult 

several factors: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and 

characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to afford adequate deterrence, to 

protect the public from further crimes, and to provide the defendant with needed 

educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment; 

Case: 14-15517 Date Filed: 10/21/2015 Page: 2 of 7 
3

(3) the Sentencing Guidelines range and pertinent policy statements of the 

Sentencing Commission; (4) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities 

among similarly situated defendants; and (5) the need to provide restitution to any 

victims of the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)–(D), (a)(4)–(7). See 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(e) (designating these factors). 

“The weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed 

to the sound discretion of the district court.” United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 

823, 832 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). The district court need not 

explicitly discuss each factor. See United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 

(11th Cir. 2005). We will vacate a sentence 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.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190 (quotation omitted).

II.

In 2000, Kontoes pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Kontoes qualified as a career offender, and the district court 

sentenced him to 151-months imprisonment and 36-months supervised release. 

Shortly after beginning this period of supervised release, Kontoes violated its terms

by using a controlled substance and failing to attend counseling. His probation 

officer petitioned to modify the supervised release to include a six-month stay in a 

halfway house, and the district court granted this motion.

Case: 14-15517 Date Filed: 10/21/2015 Page: 3 of 7 
4

The modified term was not successful either. Kontoes’s probation officer 

petitioned to revoke release again, this time based on several new violations. The 

district court took no adverse action, but gave Kontoes the opportunity to correct 

his conduct. Once more, Kontoes proved unable to abide by the terms of his 

release. On February 25, 2013, he admitted to theft and failure to make restitution 

payments. After hearing testimony about Kontoes’s mental health issues and other 

struggles, the district court revoked his release, sentenced him to two-weeks 

incarceration and six-months supervised release, and ordered him to enter an 

employment-assistance program. This lenient sentence was billed by Kontoes’s 

counsel as a way to “allow [the court] to bring him back here and sentence him 

harshly if he has any other problems on supervised release.”

As it turned out, Kontoes did. Five months into his six-month term of 

supervised release, Kontoes was charged with three felonies: two counts of theft by 

taking and a forgery charge. He pleaded guilty to all charges. He had also failed 

to report for his employment-assistance program. At the resulting revocation 

hearing, defense counsel requested that the district court sentence Kontoes to sixmonths imprisonment with no additional supervised release. Counsel noted that 

Kontoes suffered from mental health issues and was probably motivated to steal by 

his poverty, which he was striving to overcome. Addressing the court himself, 

Case: 14-15517 Date Filed: 10/21/2015 Page: 4 of 7 
5

Kontoes elaborated on his struggles with poor mental and physical health, 

joblessness, and financial insecurity.

The government noted that the guideline range was 21 to 27 months in 

prison (capped by the 24-month statutory maximum), but requested an 18-month 

sentence. After considering the guidelines, the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the 

parties’ arguments, and the facts and circumstances of the case, the district court 

concluded that a sentence of 18-months imprisonment was “fair, just and 

reasonable given the nature and seriousness of the violations.” The court did not 

impose any additional term of supervised release. Although the court initially 

directed that this sentence run concurrently with Kontoes’s state-court sentence, it 

ordered that the sentence run consecutively upon discovering that Kontoes had 

served his state sentence. Kontoes preserved his objection to the sentence’s 

reasonableness. This appeal followed.

III.

Kontoes has failed to show that the sentence imposed by the district court 

was substantively unreasonable. He has identified nothing that leaves us “with the

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

judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190 (quotation 

omitted). Rather, he has repeatedly failed to adhere to the terms of his supervised 

release despite the court’s leniency on at least two prior occasions. The last time 

Case: 14-15517 Date Filed: 10/21/2015 Page: 5 of 7 
6

Kontoes appeared before the court, he was specifically warned that “this is your 

last chance.” None of this caused Kontoes to abide by the terms of his release. 

The court was entitled to view Kontoes’s serial misconduct as requiring “adequate 

deterrence” in the form of a longer sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). The 

district court’s decision also spoke to the need, in sentencing defendants for 

violations of supervised release, to “sanction primarily the defendant’s breach of 

trust.” United States Sentencing Guidelines ch. 7, pt. A, introductory cmt. 3(b).

Kontoes is a many-times repeat offender. He has a lengthy criminal 

history—including convictions for armed robbery and bank robbery—that 

qualified him as a career offender. The court validly considered “the history and 

characteristics of the defendant,” as well as the “need . . . to protect the public from 

further crimes.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C).

Beyond that, Kontoes’s 18-month sentence fell below the 21- to 27-month

guideline range. While this does not conclusively prove its reasonableness, 

“ordinarily we would expect a sentence within the Guidelines range to be 

reasonable.” United States v. Chavez, 584 F.3d 1354, 1365 (11th Cir. 2009) 

(quotation omitted). We recognize that “there will usually be a range of reasonable 

sentences from which the district court may choose,” id. (quotation omitted), and 

that district courts possess “institutional superiority . . . with regards to 

sentencing,” Hayes, 762 F.3d at 1307. Thus, defendants carry a heavy burden in 

Case: 14-15517 Date Filed: 10/21/2015 Page: 6 of 7 
7

challenging the reasonableness of sentences that fall below the guideline range. 

Kontoes has not met that burden.

To the extent that Kontoes merely disagrees with the weight accorded to his 

mental illness or poverty, we leave the weighing of § 3553(a) factors to “the sound 

discretion of the district court.” Amedeo, 487 F.3d at 832 (quotation omitted). 

The court was entitled to find that Kontoes’s serious crimes and repeated failure to 

comply with the terms of his supervised release justified a less-lenient, but still 

below-guideline, sentence. 

Finally, there is no merit to Kontoes’s argument that his sentence should 

have been adjusted once the court realized that it could not run concurrently to his

state sentence. A term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised 

release should run “consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the 

defendant is serving.” USSG § 7B1.3(f); USSG § 7B1.3 cmt. n.4. 

On this record, we conclude that Kontoes has failed to show that his 

sentence was unreasonable. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-15517 Date Filed: 10/21/2015 Page: 7 of 7