Court Opinion

ID: 9363831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 20:00:31.096841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:34.454732
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-10429    Document: 47-1     Date Filed: 01/17/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-10429
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       JESSE BERNARD ROBINSON, JR.,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cr-00127-WWB-DCI-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-10429     Document: 47-1      Date Filed: 01/17/2023    Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                21-10429

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, AND LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Jesse Bernard Robinson, Jr. appeals his 188-month sentence
       for eight counts of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
       fentanyl and distribution of fentanyl. Robinson challenges his sen-
       tence as substantively unreasonable because the district court failed
       to account for his difficult background, excessively weighed his
       criminal history, and abused its discretion by denying his request
       for a downward variance from the applicable guideline range. We
       affirm.
              We evaluate the reasonableness of a sentence under a “def-
       erential abuse-of-discretion standard.” See Gall v. United States,
       552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). In reviewing the substantive reasonableness
       of a sentence, we consider the totality of the circumstances and
       whether the sentence achieves the purposes of sentencing stated in
       18 U.S.C. section 3553(a). See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d
       1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
              The purposes of sentencing include promoting respect for
       the law, providing just punishment, deterring criminal conduct,
       and protecting the public from further crimes. 18 U.S.C. §
       3553(a)(2). A sentencing court also should consider the nature and
       circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the
       defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the guideline range,
USCA11 Case: 21-10429      Document: 47-1     Date Filed: 01/17/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       21-10429               Opinion of the Court                         3

       policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, and the need to
       avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7).
               We will disturb a sentence “only if we are left with the defi-
       nite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear
       error of judgment in weighing the section 3553(a) factors by arriv-
       ing at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences
       dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d
       1204, 1224 (11th Cir. 2018) (alterations omitted). The party chal-
       lenging the sentence bears the burden of showing that the sentence
       is unreasonable in the light of the record and the section 3553(a)
       factors. Id.
              Robinson has failed to demonstrate that his 188-month sen-
       tence is substantively unreasonable. Robinson’s sentence repre-
       sents the low end of the advisory guideline range of 188 to 235
       months’ imprisonment. Although we do not automatically pre-
       sume that a within-guideline sentence is reasonable, we ordinarily
       expect it to be. United States v. Perkins, 787 F.3d 1329, 1342 (11th
       Cir. 2015).
              The district court explained that a sentence of 188 months
       was sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the pur-
       poses of sentencing set forth in section 3553(a). The district court
       considered Robinson’s personal history and acknowledged that he
       suffered a horrific childhood. The district court recognized that
       Robinson’s parents had been in prison, that he had been shuffled
       back and forth, and that he had learned to see drug use as normal.
       The district court added, however, that there are many people who
USCA11 Case: 21-10429      Document: 47-1      Date Filed: 01/17/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                 21-10429

       have very difficult childhoods but end up making something of
       themselves without choosing to break the law. This record clearly
       shows that the district court did not fail to weigh Robinson’s trou-
       bled background as Robinson alleges.
              Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying
       Robinson’s request for a downward variance. The district court
       noted that Robinson had a twenty-year criminal history that in-
       cluded previous convictions for selling drugs. The district court
       explained that Robinson had been to prison before, that he previ-
       ously turned down drug treatment, and that he had committed a
       serious offense that wreaks havoc on communities. The district
       court emphasized Robinson’s criminal history, the seriousness of
       his offenses, and the deterrent effect of a guideline sentence. Fi-
       nally, the district court stated that it had considered the section
       3553(a) factors and found that a sentence within the applicable
       guideline range was appropriate and sufficient but not greater than
       necessary to comply with the statutory purposes of sentencing.
               Robinson identifies no factors in section 3553(a) that the dis-
       trict court failed to consider, nor does he provide any support for
       his assertion that the district court placed too much weight on his
       criminal history. The record leaves us with no “definite and firm
       conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judg-
       ment.” Shabazz, 887 F.3d at 1224. Because the district court
       abused no discretion, we affirm Robinson’s sentence.
              AFFIRMED.