Opinion ID: 3061719
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonableness of Holt’s 360-Month Sentence5

Text: We review the final sentence imposed by a district court for reasonableness. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 264, 125 S.Ct. 738, 767 (2005). First, we must ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as incorrectly calculating the guidelines or failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors.6 United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597 (2007). A district court is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each factor. Talley, 431 F.3d at 786. Rather, “[t]he sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decision making 5 It appears from the briefs that Holt is only challenging the 360 month sentence as to Count 2 in Case No. 38. 6 The § 3553(a) factors include: (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. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 786 (11th Cir. 2005) (summarizing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). 23 authority.” United States v. Rita, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007). Nonetheless, when a judge decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular case, as in the instant case, doing so will not necessarily require lengthy explanation. Circumstances may well make clear that the judge rests his decision upon the Commission’s own reasoning that the Guidelines sentence is a proper sentence (in terms of § 3553(a) and other congressional mandates) in the typical case, and that the judge has found that the case before him is typical. Id. Once we determine that the district court’s sentencing decision is procedurally sound, we then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion. Id. at 359. Reasonableness review is “deferential,” and the burden is on the appellant to show that the sentence was unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors. Talley, 431 F.3d at 788. While a sentence within the guidelines range is not per se reasonable, we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be reasonable. Id. The fact that both the sentencing judge and the Sentencing Commission have reached the same conclusion as to the proper sentence “significantly increases the likelihood that the sentence is a reasonable one.” Rita, 551 U.S. at 347, 127 S.Ct. at 2463. 24 “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) (quotation marks omitted). We will remand for resentencing only if 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.” Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1191 (quotation marks omitted). Holt argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to properly calculate the guidelines and to consider the § 3553(a) factors. Furthermore, Holt asserts his 360-month sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing and that there is no indicia of rehabilitation built into his sentence, arguing the only purpose of the 360 month sentence is punishment. As stated above, the district court did not procedurally err in enhancing Holt’s sentence under § 2G2.1(b)(1)(B) and § 2G2.1(b)(3) of the guidelines. Holt’s next claim that the court did not consider the various § 3553(a) factors is also without merit. The record is replete with instances where the district court considered the respective parties’ arguments regarding the § 3553(a) factors, even explicitly stating 25 that it had done so. This satisfies the procedural standard required of the district court. Therefore, we find no error. We also find that Holt’s sentence is substantively reasonable. Even though the court considered all of the § 3553(a) factors, it is not required to rely solely on them. The district court was well within its discretion in giving more weight to the guidelines range and the seriousness of Holt’s disturbing relevant conduct with respect to MV, which included repeated acts of sexual abuse of a stepdaughter beginning when she was only fourteen years old. In light of this, the district court’s imposition of a 360-month sentence is not outside the range of reasonable sentences. See Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1191; see also United States v. Sarras, 575 F.3d 1191, 1220 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Child sex crimes are among the most egregious and despicable of societal and criminal offenses, and courts have upheld lengthy sentences in these cases as substantively reasonable.”); United States v. Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291, 1303, 1316-19 (11th Cir. 2009) (upholding as reasonable a 420-month sentence, which represented an upward variance from the 262-327-month guideline range, for possession, production, and receipt of child pornography). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Holt’s convictions and sentences. AFFIRMED. 26