Opinion ID: 4521975
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lesser Sentence

Text: On substantive reasonableness review, we may vacate the sentence 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 1 We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse of discretion standard, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 2 Case: 19-12859 Date Filed: 04/02/2020 Page: 3 of 5 that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotations omitted). It is the defendant’s burden to show the unreasonableness of his sentence in light of the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1350 (11th Cir. 2006). The district court must impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), which include the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, protect the public, and provide the defendant with appropriate medical care or other correctional treatment. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The district court must also consider the “nature and circumstances” of the offense and the defendant’s “history and characteristics.” Id. § 3553(a)(1). The statute also directs the district court to consider the types of sentences established by the applicable Guidelines range and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities between similarly situated defendants. Id. § 3553(a)(4), (6). The weight each § 3553(a) factor receives is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008). McKennie has not shown his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court indicated it had considered all of the facts and circumstances, as well 3 Case: 19-12859 Date Filed: 04/02/2020 Page: 4 of 5 as the § 3553(a) factors, in crafting McKennie’s sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In particular, the district court noted that describing McKennie’s extensive criminal record took up 15 of the Presentence Investigation Report’s 31 pages and expressed concern that nothing had deterred him from engaging in criminal conduct. See Williams, 526 F.3d at 1324 (stating a defendant’s criminal history fits “squarely” into the § 3553(a) category that requires the district court to consider the history and characteristics of the defendant). The district court also demonstrated it had considered McKennie’s need for mental health treatment by asking McKennie to talk about his mental issues and imposing treatment as a condition of supervised release. Further, there is no indication the district court failed to consider any relevant § 3553(a) factor, inappropriately relied on any factor, or relied on any improper factor. See Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189 (stating a district court abuses its discretion and imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence when it “(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors”); United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936, 944 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining the district court need not explicitly state on the record that it has considered each § 3553(a) sentencing factor or discuss each factor, and its consideration of the factors may be inferred from the record). That McKennie’s 4 Case: 19-12859 Date Filed: 04/02/2020 Page: 5 of 5 sentence is well below both the statutory maximum and his Guidelines range also suggests that it reasonable. See United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1310 (11th Cir. 2016) (explaining that a sentence falls well below the statutory maximum is an indicator of reasonableness); United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating while we do not presume that a within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable, we typically expect such a sentence to be reasonable).