Opinion ID: 51142
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consideration of Lamb’s Rehabilitation

Text: Lamb also argues that his sentence should be reversed because the district court focused “solely” on the nature and circumstances of the offense, while giving “no consideration at all” to his personal “history and characteristics” such as his steady and gainful employment. We disagree. 23 During the sentencing hearing, the district court specifically took note of Lamb’s period of employment with the Humane Society. Indeed, the court read excerpts from a letter written by Lamb’s supervisor describing Lamb as a wellliked, courteous, caring, and hard-working employee. Noting the seriousness of the charged offenses, however, the court went on to discuss the need for the sentence to, inter alia, reflect the seriousness of the offenses, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the public from future crimes by Lamb. Because “the weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court,” we will not substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant factors. United States v. Williams, 456 F.3d 1353, 1363 (11th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we reject Lamb’s argument.