Opinion ID: 4519753
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: This Court reviews the reasonableness of Defendant’s sentence under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). When conducting this review, the Court first considers whether the district court committed any significant procedural error such as “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, . . . 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.” Id. Assuming the sentence is procedurally sound, the Court then considers whether the sentence is substantively reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances.” Id. In applying the above standard, the Court reviews the factual findings underlying the district court’s sentencing determination for clear error and its application of the law to those findings de novo. United States v. Kinard, 472 F.3d 1294, 1297 n.3 (11th Cir. 2006). However, any factual and legal issues that were not raised below are reviewed only for plain error. United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1328 (11th Cir. 2005). Under the plain error standard, the Court must affirm unless it finds that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error was plain, (3) the error affects the defendant’s substantial rights, and (4) the forfeited error should be 12 Case: 19-10510 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 13 of 26 noticed because it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of [the] judicial proceedings.” Id. at 1329 (internal quotation marks omitted).