Court Opinion

ID: 9780944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 14:01:08.283002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:46.837947
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11477    Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 08/30/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]

                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11477
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MICHAEL MONTAY MARTIN,
       a.k.a. Mojo,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00167-ELR-JFK-1
USCA11 Case: 23-11477      Document: 26-1         Date Filed: 08/30/2023   Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                   23-11477

                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Appellant Michael Martin appeals his sentence of 12 months
       and 1 day imposed by the district court following the revocation of
       his supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). Martin argues
       that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district
       court failed to consider any mitigating factors regarding his depres-
       sion and stress, for which he used marijuana. After reading the par-
       ties’ briefs and reviewing the record, we affirm Martin’s sentence.
                                             I.
               We review for abuse of discretion a sentence’s reasonable-
       ness, regardless of whether that sentence falls inside or outside of
       the guideline range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct.
       586, 597 (2007). The party challenging the substantive reasonable-
       ness of the sentence bears the burden of establishing that it is un-
       reasonable based on the record, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and
       “the substantial deference afforded [to] sentencing courts.” United
       States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015). Under
       this standard, we may affirm a sentence even though we would
       have imposed a different sentence had we been in the district
       court’s position. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir.
       2010) (en banc).
                                            II.
USCA11 Case: 23-11477      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 08/30/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       23-11477               Opinion of the Court                          3

               Martin contends on appeal that his sentence is substantively
       unreasonable under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors because the dis-
       trict court failed to consider that his marijuana usage to treat his
       depression and to help alleviate stress did not aﬀect his employ-
       ment or cause recidivism. Martin claims that many medical pro-
       fessionals have accepted marijuana as an eﬀective medication to
       treat mental illness like depression and anxiety. He alleges that the
       district court failed to consider or explain this mitigating factor in
       formulating a sentence. The government responds that Martin
       raises this issue for the ﬁrst time on appeal, that the pre-sentence
       investigation report did not document a history of mental or emo-
       tional problems, and that the district court noted that his marijuana
       usage for an alleged valid reason did not aﬀect the sentence estima-
       tion.
               A sentence is substantively unreasonable only when the dis-
       trict court “(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that
       were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an im-
       proper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment
       in considering the proper factors.” Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1256
       (quotation marks omitted). We “commit[] to the sound discretion
       of the district court the weight to be accorded to each § 3553(a) fac-
       tor,” United States v. Perkins, 787 F.3d 1329, 1342 (11th Cir. 2015),
       and the district court is “permitted to attach great weight to one
       factor over others,” United States v. Riley, 995 F.3d 1272, 1279 (11th
       Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted). Further, a failure to discuss
       mitigating evidence does not indicate that the court “erroneously
USCA11 Case: 23-11477      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 08/30/2023    Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11477

       ‘ignored’ or failed to consider this evidence.” United States v.
       Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir. 2007).
              We will vacate a district court’s sentence “only if we are left
       with the ‘definite and firm’ conviction that the district court com-
       mitted a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors
       by arriving at a sentence that [is] outside the range of reasonable
       sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Gold-
       man, 953 F.3d 1213, 1222 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Irey, 612 F.3d at
       1190). We do not apply a presumption of reasonableness to sen-
       tences within the guideline range, but we ordinarily expect such a
       sentence to be reasonable. United States v. Stanley, 739 F.3d 633, 656
       (11th Cir. 2014).
              Section 3553(a)’s “overarching” instruction to sentencing
       courts is that any sentence must be sufficient but not greater than
       necessary to comply with the purposes listed in § 3553(a)(2). Kim-
       brough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 101, 128 S. Ct. 558, 570 (2007);
       18 U.S.C. § 3553. When imposing a sentence upon revocation of
       supervised release, the district court considers the following
       § 3553(a) factors: the nature and circumstances of the offense; the
       defendant’s history and characteristics; the sentences available and
       relevant sentencing range; the need to deter criminal conduct, pro-
       tect the public, provide the defendant with training or other cor-
       rectional treatment, avoid disparities between defendants, and pro-
       vide for restitution; and any pertinent policy statements. 18 U.S.C.
       §§ 3583(e)(3), 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), (a)(4)-(7).
                                            III.
USCA11 Case: 23-11477      Document: 26-1       Date Filed: 08/30/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       23-11477                Opinion of the Court                          5

               The record demonstrates that the district court did not err
       in imposing Martin’s sentence. Martin cannot meet his burden to
       show that his sentence is substantively unreasonable based on the
       record, the § 3553 factors, and the substantial deference afforded
       the district court. Martin failed to alleviate the district court’s con-
       cerns about his failure to comply with the terms of his supervised
       release. At the first revocation hearing, the district court indicated
       that it was concerned about Martin’s continued marijuana usage,
       his failure to participate in a substance abuse treatment program,
       and his failure to follow the probation officer’s instructions. The
       district court allowed Martin two months to prove he could main-
       tain sobriety, but Martin failed to do so.
               At the second revocation hearing, the district court noted
       that Martin continued to use marijuana and ceased participating in
       drug abuse counseling treatment. At this hearing, Martin ex-
       plained for the first time that he used marijuana to treat his depres-
       sion and to alleviate his stress. Although the district court did not
       expressly note that issue, there is no indication that the district
       court failed to consider this argument because it noted that Mar-
       tin’s arguments did not affect its decision. The district court was
       within its discretion to weigh Martin’s failures to comply with his
       supervised release conditions more heavily than any alleged men-
       tal health issues. Thus, Martin cannot show that the sentence is
       substantively unreasonable. Moreover, Martin’s sentence was
       within his Guideline range, and this also indicates that the sentence
       was reasonable.
USCA11 Case: 23-11477    Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 08/30/2023    Page: 6 of 6

       6                     Opinion of the Court               23-11477

              Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, we af-
       firm the district court’s imposition of a 12 months and 1 day sen-
       tence following the revocation of Martin’s supervised release.
             AFFIRMED.