Opinion ID: 3062961
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: reasonableness of badillo abadia’s sentence

Text: In United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court held that sentences are to be reviewed for “unreasonable[ness].” 543 U.S. 220, 261, 125 S. Ct. 738, 765-66 (2005). In so reviewing a sentence, we “merely ask[] whether the trial court abused its discretion.” United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation removed). The burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable lies with the party challenging the sentence. Id. Pursuant to Gall v. United States, appellate review for reasonableness is a two-step process. 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007). First, we “must . . . ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error.” Pugh, 515 F.2d at 1190. Second, we must consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. Section 3553(a) provides that district courts must consider: (1) the applicable Guideline range; (2) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant; (4) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (5) the need for adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (6) protection of the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (7) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. See 4 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(6). “The weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant factors.” United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotations and alterations omitted). “[A]n acknowledgment by the district court that it has considered the defendant’s arguments and the factors in section 3553(a) is sufficient under Booker.” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir. 2005). “[T]here is a range of reasonable sentences from which the district court may choose, and when the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guideline range, we ordinarily expect that choice to be a reasonable one.” Id. at 788. In imposing Badillo Abadia’s sentences, the court states that it had considered the Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, and it explicitly discussed the seriousness of the offense and the need to promote respect for the law, provide punishment, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public. To the extent that Badillo Abadia contends that the court created an unwarranted sentencing disparity by denying him a minor-role reduction, his contention is without merit because, as we discussed above, the district court properly denied him that reduction. Although Badillo Abadia contends that shorter sentences would have 5 had the same deterrent effect, the court was entitled to conclude that his offense merited sentences within the Guidelines range. Evaluating the record as a whole, nothing suggests that the sentences imposed were unreasonable. Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm. AFFIRMED.1 1 Appellant’s request for oral argument is DENIED. 6