[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 42 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :1 1- cr-0 04 91 -TW T-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee

ve rs us ANTONIO JAMAL DAVIS,
Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 8, 2 01 2)
Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR, an d J ORDAN, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
JOR DAN, Circu it Ju dg e:

Case: 12-10423 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 1 of 5On Octo be r 27 , 20 11 , Ant on io Ja mal D a v is pl ed gu il ty to po ss es si on of a

fir earm by a fel on

. S ee 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g)

. Thi s of fen se carr ie d a st at ut or y m ax im um

se nt en ce o f 1 0 years ’ im pr is on m en t bu t no st at ut or y m in im um se nt en ce. Se e 18

U.S.C. § 92 4( a)(2 ). Due t o h i s p r i o r cri m in al hi st or y , Mr. Dav is ’ ad vi so ry ran ge

un de r th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s was 37 -4 8 m on th s’ i m pr is on m en t. A t M r . Da vi s’

se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d a se nt en ce of 37 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t

an d e xp la in ed th at th e se nt en ce was ba se d, i n l arg e m eas ur e, up on Mr. Dav is ’ pr io r
of fen se s (in cl ud in g a st at e co n v i c t i o n fo r po ss es si on of a fir earm by a fel on ) an d

nu m ero us rev oc at io ns of pr ob at io n. On ap pe al , M r. Dav is arg ue s th at th e se nt en ce

was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le , an d th at th e di st r i c t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve im po se d a
le ss er s en te nc e o f 24 m on th s g iv en th at he ha d u nd erg on e v ari ou s p os it iv e ch an ge s
in hi s l ife du rin g t he pe nd en cy of t he cas e.
We rev ie w a se nt en ce fo r su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss un de r an ab us e o f
di sc ret io n st an da rd

. Se e Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38 , 51 , 12 8 S. Ct

. 58 6, 59 7 (2 00 7)

. In so do in g, “ we do no t, as th e di st ric t co ur t di d, de te rm in e th e ex act se nt en ce

to be im po se d.” Uni te d St at es v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F.3 d 78 4, 78 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). In fact ,

ev en if th e di st ric t co ur t’s se nt en ce is m or e se ve re or m or e le ni en t th an th e se nt en ce

we wou ld ha ve im

po se d, rev ers al is on ly warra nt ed if we are “ le ft wit h th e d e fin it e

an d fir m c o n v i c t i on th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in

2 Case: 12-10423 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 2 of 5weig hi ng th e [1 8 U.S.C.] § 35 53 (a) fact or s by arri vi ng at a se nt en ce th at li es ou ts id e

th e ran ge of reas on ab le se nt en ces di ct at ed by th e fact s of th e cas e.” Uni te d St at es v.
Ir ey, 61 2 F.3 d 11 60 , 11 90 (1 1 Ci r. 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Pug h , th

51 5 F.3 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 91 (1 1 Ci r. 20 08 )). On th is reco rd , t he di st ric t co ur t’s se nt en ce th

was no t s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le

. Fi rs t, Mr. Dav is rece iv ed a se nt en ce th at was wit hi n th e ad vi so ry ran ge un de r
th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. Alt h ou gh we do no t au to m at ic al ly pr es um e a se nt en ce
fal li ng wit hi n th e gu id el in e r a n g e t o be reas on ab le , we or di na ril y ex pe ct su ch a

se nt en ce to be reas on ab le

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Hun t , 5 26 F.3 d 73 9, 74 6 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Ta ll ey , 43 1 F.3 d at 78 8)

. Und er th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, Mr. Dav is

was in Cri m in al His to r y C a te go ry IV an d, no ta bl y , ha d a pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r

po ss es si on of a fir earm by a co nv ic te d felo n in 20 09

. D.E. 15 at 5. In th is cas e, th e
di st ric t co ur t reas on ed th at Mr. Dav is ’s se nt en ce ne ed ed to “ co nv in ce hi m th at he jus t
is no t al lo wed to [p os se ss fir earm s].” Id

. at 14

. The di st ric t co ur t al so co nc lu de d th at

a se nt en ce at th e lo w en d of th e gu id el in e r a n g e wou ld be su ffi ci en t “ be cau se th e

aggr av at in g fact or s th at ex is t in th is ca se , pr in ci pa ll y th e Defen da nt ’s cri m in al re co rd , ha ve al read y be en ta ke n in to co ns id erat io n in th e cal cu la ti on of th e gu id el in e ran ge .”
Id

. at 16 (em

ph as i s ad de d)

. The refo re, th e di st ric t co ur t’s rel ia nc e on th e ad vi so ry

gu id e l i n e r a n ge was ul ti m at el y cas e-s pe ci fic an d no t a ro te ap pl ic at io n. W e fin d

3 Case: 12-10423 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 3 of 5no th in g i n th e reco rd to su gg es t th at th e di st ric t cou rt’s judg m en t was sub st an ti ve ly

un reas on ab le

. Seco nd , th e reco rd refl ect s th at th e di st ric t co ur t su ffi ci en tl y co ns id ered th e §

35 53 (a) fact or s. At th e se nt en c i n g he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t pe rm it te d Mr. Dav is , th ro ug h co un se l, to arg ue in fav or of a va ria nc e. D.E. 15 at 6- 10

. The arg um en t was
he ard , su bs eq ue nt ly ad dr es se d, an d reject ed

. Se e , e.g

. , id

. at 14 (“ And th e ex cu se th at
he ha s go t a fir earm be cau se he wan ts to pr ot ect h is fam il y is jus t no t go in g to be

acce pt ed

. I ap pl au d Mr. Dav is fo r ge tt in g in vo lv ed in hi s y ou ng ch il d’s li fe, bu t th at ’s

an ot he r rea so n wh y

he sh ou ld n’t b e h av in g fi rear m s . . .”).

Mr. Dav is ne ve rth el es s co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t “ fai l[e d] to co ns id er hi s
li fe hi st or y an d ci rcu m st an ces in it s ba la nc in g of th e Sect io n 35 53 (a) fact or s.” In it ia l

Br. at 7

. We d i sa gr ee. On th e co nt rary, th e di st ric t co ur t ex pr es sl y ack no wled ge d
th at it co ns id ered th e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s i nc lu di ng “ th e h is to ry an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f
th e Defen da nt .” D.E. 15 at 16

. Se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Sc ot t , 42 6 F.3 d 13 24 , 13 29 (1 1 Ci r. 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th at an ack no wled gm en t by th e di st ric t co ur t th at it th

co ns id ered th e fact or s se t fo rth in § 35 53 (a) is ge ne ral ly su ffi ci en t). Thu s, wha t Mr.

Dav is is es se nt ia ll y arg ui ng is th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t gi ve su ffi ci en t weig ht to
th e p a r t ic ul ar ci rcu m st an ces he rai se d at hi s se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. Bu t, “ we wil l no t

se co nd gu es s th e weig ht (o r la ck th ereo f) th at th e [d is tri ct co ur t] acco rd ed to a gi ve n

4 Case: 12-10423 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 4 of 5fact or

. . . , as lo ng as th e se nt en ce ul ti m at el y im po se d is reas on ab le in li gh t of al l th e
ci rcu m st an ces pr es en te d.” Uni te d St at es v. Sn ip es , 61 1 F.3 d 85 5 , 8 72 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 10 ) (ci ta ti on s an d qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) (em ph as is in or ig in al ). In th is cas e, th e
di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered al l th e rel ev an t fact or s bu t ch os e to pl ace a gr eat er em ph as is

up on Mr. Dav is ’ pr io r cri m in al hi st or y (in cl ud in g t he sa m e cri m in al vi ol at io n t hr ee

y ears earl ie r) an d nu m ero us vi ol at io ns of pr ob at io n. D.E. 15 at 14

. The di st ric t co ur t
i s en ti tl ed to m ak e th at ev al ua ti on

. Se e Pug h , 51 5 F.3 d at 11 92 (fi nd in g t h a t a

se nt en ce is no t ne ces sa ril y un reas on ab le si m pl y be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t a t t a c h ed

gr eat weig ht to a si ng le fact or ). W e do no t be li ev e th at th e ci rcu m st an ces in th is cas e

cau se th at ev al ua ti on to be su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. 

### A F F I R M E D 

### .

5 Case: 12-10423 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 5 of 5