Opinion ID: 3063017
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Substantive Reasonableness of His Sentence

Text: Davis further argues that his total sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court unfairly weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. According to Davis, the court focused on punishing him for his criminal history, while ignoring the nature of the charges and his personal history of mental problems and drug addiction. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008). Under this deferential standard, 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.” Id. at 1191 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The § 3553(a) factors include the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public 11 from future crimes by the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) (2009). The court is not required to discuss each § 3553(a) factor individually, so long as it acknowledges that it considered the defendant’s arguments and the pertinent sentencing factors. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir. 2005)