Opinion ID: 3063469
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Walton’s Sentence

Text: We review a final sentence for reasonableness. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 785 (11th Cir. 2005). In conducting this review, we apply a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. ___, ___, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We first review whether the district court committed a procedural error, such as incorrectly calculating the Guidelines, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, imposing a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence. Id. at ___, 128 S. Ct. at 597. The district court’s application of the Guidelines “may be based on undisputed statements in the PSI.” United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825, 832 (11th Cir. 2006). If there are no procedural errors, we “then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall, 552 U.S. at ___, 128 S. Ct. at 597. This review involves inquiring whether the § 3553(a) factors supported the sentence and justified any deviation from the defendant’s sentencing range. Id. at ___, 128 S. Ct. at 600. The factors presented in § 3553(a) include: 11 (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to victims. Talley, 431 F.3d at 786; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). However, the district court is not required to discuss each individual factor when determining a sentence. United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329-30 (11th Cir. 2005). Even if we disagree with the weight a district court accords to any given 3553(a) factor, we will not reverse a procedurally proper sentence unless we are left with the firm conviction that the court committed “a clear error of judgment” in weighing the factors. United States v. McBride, 511 F.3d 1293, 1297 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted). A defendant challenging his sentence bears the burden of establishing that it is unreasonable. Talley, 431 F.3d at 788. Walton raises three arguments: the district court did not adequately take into account the § 3553(a) factors, Walton’s prior criminal history did not warrant a career offender enhancement, and the court failed to consider any mitigating circumstances. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we 12 discern no error with respect to Walton’s sentence. The district court expressly stated that it considered the statutory factors and provided a detailed explanation of the basis of its sentence. Similarly, the court took into account the nature of Walton’s prior criminal acts and found that it was appropriate to categorize Walton as a career criminal. Finally, the district court stated that it considered the presentence report, which discusses all of the mitigating circumstances that Walton sets forth on appeal. Based on the foregoing, the district court did not err in sentencing Walton to 300 months of incarceration. Gall, 552 U.S. at __, 128 S. Ct. at 597. Accordingly, we affirm Walton’s convictions and aggregate sentence. AFFIRMED.4 4 Appellant’s request for oral argument is denied. 13