Opinion ID: 3195090
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Reasonableness Principles

Text: In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). We then examine whether the sentence was substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. Id. The party challenging the sentence bears the burden to show that the sentence imposed is unreasonable in light of the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). As to the first step, we must “ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597. As to the second step—assessing substantive reasonableness—the district court must impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes listed in 18 U.S.C. § 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). The district court must also consider the nature and circumstances of 30 Case: 15-11720 Date Filed: 04/11/2016 Page: 31 of 34 the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the applicable guidelines range, the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7). The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the district court has considerable discretion in deciding whether the § 3553(a) factors justify a variance and the extent of such a variance. United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888, 892 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 764 (2014). We will not remand for resentencing unless 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. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We do not presume that a sentence falling within the guidelines range is reasonable, but we ordinarily expect it to be so. United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008). A sentence imposed well below the statutory maximum penalty is another indicator of reasonableness. See United States v. Gonzales, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008). 31 Case: 15-11720 Date Filed: 04/11/2016 Page: 32 of 34 The district court is required “to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). However, defendants who cooperate with the government and enter written plea agreements are not similarly situated to a defendant who provides no assistance and proceeds to trial. United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091, 1101 (11th Cir. 2009). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s discretionary refusal to grant a downward departure unless the district court incorrectly believed that it lacked the authority to depart from the guidelines range. United States v. Dudley, 463 F.3d 1221, 1228 (11th Cir. 2006).