Opinion ID: 809637
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Sentencing Principles

Text: We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 46, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591, 594 (2007). In a reasonableness review, we first look at whether the district court committed any significant procedural error and then at whether the sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.1 United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008); United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).2 The party challenging the sentence has the burden to show the sentence is unreasonable. 1 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 unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 2 Davis does not argue that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable or identify any procedural defect in his sentencing. 2 Case: 12-11598 Date Filed: 10/04/2012 Page: 3 of 7 Talley, 431 F.3d at 788. Although in choosing a sentence, the district court must consider the § 3553(a) factors, “[t]he weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the district court need not discuss each factor explicitly; rather an acknowledgment that the district court considered the defendant’s arguments and the factors will suffice. United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329-30 (11th Cir. 2005). If the district court decides to impose an upward variance, “it must ‘consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.’” Williams, 526 F.3d at 1322 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S. Ct. at 597). In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence outside the advisory guidelines range, we take into account the district court’s justification and the extent of the variance, but we do not require extraordinary circumstances to justify such a sentence or presume that the sentence is unreasonable. Gall, 552 U.S. at 47, 128 S. Ct. at 594-95; United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1186-87 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We also must give “‘due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, as a whole, 3 Case: 12-11598 Date Filed: 10/04/2012 Page: 4 of 7 justify the extent of the variance.’” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1187 (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 695). We will vacate such 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 by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).