Court Opinion

ID: 9942933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 15:01:17.496668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:38.799119
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14157    Document: 48-1     Date Filed: 02/22/2024   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-14157
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       BRIAN OMAR CAMPBELL,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cr-00150-CEM-EJK-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14157      Document: 48-1       Date Filed: 02/22/2024     Page: 2 of 6

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-14157

       Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Brian Campbell appeals his 20-month sentence imposed
       upon the revocation of his supervised release. Campbell asserts
       that the district court violated his due process right to not be sen-
       tenced based on false or unreliable information. He also argues
       that his above-guideline sentence is substantively unreasonable.
       After careful review of the parties’ arguments, we affirm Camp-
       bell’s sentence.
                                          I
               We review de novo whether a district court violated a de-
       fendant’s due process right to not be sentenced based on false or
       unreliable information. United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256, 1268
       (11th Cir. 2010). At sentencing, the district court “may consider
       any information, (including hearsay), regardless of its admissibility
       at trial, in determining whether factors exist that would enhance a
       defendant’s sentence, provided that the evidence has sufficient in-
       dicia of reliability, the court makes explicit findings of fact as to
       credibility, and the defendant has an opportunity to rebut the evi-
       dence.” Id. at 1269 (quotation marks omitted). The defendant,
       however, has a due process right “not to be sentenced based on
       false or unreliable information.” Id. To prevail on a challenge to a
       sentence based on the court’s consideration of false or unreliable
       information, the defendant must show “(1) that the challenged ev-
       idence is materially false or unreliable and (2) that it actually served
USCA11 Case: 22-14157      Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 02/22/2024     Page: 3 of 6

       22-14157               Opinion of the Court                          3

       as the basis for the sentence.” Id. The defendant “bears the burden
       of showing that the court explicitly relied on the information.” Id.
       (quotation marks omitted).
               Here, the district court did not violate Campbell’s due pro-
       cess right to not be sentenced based on false or unreliable infor-
       mation—an undated video that purports to show Campbell bran-
       dishing firearms. As an initial matter, we need not address whether
       Campbell established that the video was materially false or unreli-
       able because Campbell ultimately fails to establish the second
       prong outlined in Ghertler—that the video actually served as the ba-
       sis for his sentence. Id. at 1269. Although the district court admit-
       ted the video into evidence, it did not give any indication that the
       video would serve as a basis for sentencing. Indeed, after admitting
       the video, the district court did not reference the video or firearms
       again. When sentencing Campbell, the district court discussed rea-
       sons unrelated to the video and the use of firearms, including
       Campbell’s unsupported explanation for failing to provide a urine
       sample, his history of probation violations, his ability to find a dif-
       ferent job to make restitution payments, his impact on the lives of
       the victims of his underlying offenses, and his lack of remorse.
       Thus, the district court did not violate Campbell’s due process
       rights at sentencing because Campbell did not establish that the
       court relied on false or unreliable information to determine his sen-
       tence. Ghertler, 605 F.3d at 1269.
USCA11 Case: 22-14157      Document: 48-1     Date Filed: 02/22/2024     Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-14157

                                         II
               We consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
       under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v.
       Butler, 39 F.4th 1349, 1354–55 (11th Cir. 2022). “In reviewing the
       reasonableness of a sentence, we will not substitute our own judg-
       ment for that of the sentencing court and we will affirm a sentence
       so long as the court’s decision was in the ballpark of permissible
       outcomes.” Id. at 1355 (quotation marks omitted). The appellant
       bears the burden of showing that the sentence is unreasonable in
       light of the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States
       v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
              A district court may impose an upward variance based on
       the § 3553(a) factors. See Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355. Under § 3553(a),
       the district court must impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not
       greater than necessary, to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to
       promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the
       offense, to afford adequate deterrence, and to protect the public
       from further crimes of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In addi-
       tion, the court must consider, among other factors, the nature and
       circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the
       defendant, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
       among similarly situated defendants. Id. The court imposes a sub-
       stantively unreasonable sentence “when it (1) fails to afford consid-
       eration 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 fac-
       tors.” Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355 (quotation marks omitted). The
USCA11 Case: 22-14157      Document: 48-1       Date Filed: 02/22/2024     Page: 5 of 6

       22-14157                Opinion of the Court                          5

       court “commits a clear error of judgment when it weighs the
       § 3553(a) sentencing factors unreasonably.” Id.
               While the district court is required to consider all relevant
       § 3553(a) factors, “the weight given to each factor is committed to
       the sound discretion of the district court,” and the court may attach
       great weight to one factor over the others. Id. Additionally, a
       court’s “failure to discuss mitigating evidence does not indicate that
       the court erroneously ignored or failed to consider the evidence.”
       Id. at 1356 (quotation marks omitted and alteration adopted). The
       court “need not state on the record that it has considered each of
       the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1281
       (11th Cir. 2007). Rather, an acknowledgment by the district court
       that it has considered the § 3553(a) factors is sufficient. Id. Further-
       more, a sentence imposed “within the statutory maximum” may
       indicate reasonableness. See United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105,
       1107 (11th Cir. 2006).
              Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion. To the
       extent that Campbell argues that the district court imposed a sub-
       stantively unreasonable sentence because it relied on the video,
       that argument fails for the same reasons as described above. See
       Ghertler, 605 F.3d at 1269. Additionally, the district court explicitly
       stated that it considered the § 3553(a) factors during Campbell’s
       sentencing. Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355–56; Turner, 474 F.3d at 1281. In
       imposing Campbell’s sentence, the court discussed the nature and
       circumstances of his violations, referring to them as “pretty bad
       technical violations” and noting that he could have gotten a
USCA11 Case: 22-14157     Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 02/22/2024    Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                22-14157

       different job to make restitution payments. It also discussed his
       history and characteristics, including his past probation violations
       and his lack of remorse. See § 3553(a). In sum, district court did
       not abuse its discretion because Campbell’s 20-month sentence is
       substantively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances,
       and the court properly considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors.
       See § 3553(a); Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355–56; Turner, 474 F.3d at 1281.
             AFFIRMED.