Opinion ID: 812345
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Degree of Variance

Text: Next, Spence argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the variance, achieved by running the four sentences consecutively, was extreme and not justified by sufficiently compelling reasons. He argues that, after the departures, his guideline range was 51 to 63 months. Thus, the 240-month total sentence is 4.7 times higher (370%) than the low end of that guideline range. We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a “deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 41, 128 S. Ct at 591. Extraordinary justification or rigid mathematical formulas are not required for a sentence outside the guideline range, but the district court should explain why the variance is 7 Case: 12-10251 Date Filed: 11/21/2012 Page: 8 of 11 appropriate in a particular case and “the justification for the variance must be sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1186-87 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1813 (2011). While the degree of the variance here was large, we are persuaded that the facts of this case support such a large variance. A 63-month sentence would be wholly inadequate to effect the purposes of sentencing and the § 3553(a) factors. The district court’s reasons were sufficiently compelling to warrant a 240-month total sentence. Irey, 612 F.3d at 1186-87. The court noted that “vile, depraved, horrific, and repugnant” were inadequate to describe the nature of the calls. Spence’s history and characteristics show that he has committed the same type of criminal behavior for 40 years and is almost certain to recidivate. Previous sentences did nothing to deter Spence from engaging in this heinous conduct. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in running the sentences consecutively to impose a total 240-month sentence, the statutory maximum.