Opinion ID: 4526977
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review the district court’s interpretation and application of the Guidelines, including the application of enhancements to specific offense characteristics, de novo. United States v. Barakat, 130 F.3d 1448, 1452 (11th Cir. 1997). “However, we review the district court’s factual findings related to the imposition of sentencing enhancements only for clear error.” Id.; see also United States v. Castaneda-Pozo, 877 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 2017) (“The district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and its application of those facts to justify a sentencing enhancement is reviewed de novo.” (quoting United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1191 (11th Cir. 2015))). “We will not reverse a district court’s factual finding unless we are ‘left with a definite and firm 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)-(7). 3 Sams, who was 37 years’ old at the time of sentencing, had a criminal record dating back to his early teens, which included multiple counts of theft (two of which involved stealing a car), drug possession, and unlawful possession of a firearm. He had been sentenced to extended periods of confinement multiple times. 6 Case: 19-14014 Date Filed: 04/20/2020 Page: 7 of 10 conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Castaneda-Pozo, 877 F.3d at 1251 (quoting Matchett, 802 F.3d at 1191). “[W]e may affirm ‘for any reason supported by the record, even if not relied upon by the district court.’” United States v. Chitwood, 676 F.3d 971, 975 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008)).