Court Opinion

ID: 9386378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-12 15:01:00.045535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:05.908106
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12144    Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 04/12/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12144
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       KEVIN JACKSON,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 2:20-tp-14006-AMC-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12144      Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 04/12/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12144

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Kevin Jackson committed numerous supervised release vio-
       lations—including use of marijuana and fleeing from and eluding a
       law enforcement officer—for which he was sentenced to 18
       months imprisonment and 18 months supervised release. On ap-
       peal he argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable be-
       cause it is not related to any proper sentencing factor and involves
       greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary to achieve
       the purposes of sentencing.
              We review the reasonableness of a sentence, including the
       imposition of supervised release, under a deferential abuse-of-dis-
       cretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
               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 to arrive at an unreasonable sen-
       tence based on the facts of the case. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d
       1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The party challenging the
       sentence bears the burden of establishing that it is unreasonable
       based on the facts of the case and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
       United States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d 1204, 1224 (11th Cir. 2018). The
       district court must issue a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than
       necessary” to comply with the purposes of § 3553(a)(2), which
USCA11 Case: 22-12144      Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 04/12/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-12144               Opinion of the Court                         3

       include the need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the of-
       fense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, deter
       criminal conduct, and protect the public from future criminal con-
       duct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The weight given to any § 3553(a) factor
       is a matter committed to the discretion of the district court. United
       States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008).
               A departure is made under the Guidelines, while a variance
       is made under the sentencing factors in § 3553(a). United States v.
       Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291, 1316 (11th Cir. 2009). A challenge to an
       upward variance is viewed as a challenge to the substantive reason-
       ableness of a sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Dougherty,
       754 F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2014). A district court does not abuse
       its discretion by varying upward and placing more weight on a de-
       fendant’s criminal history than on the advisory guideline range.
       United States v. Osorio-Moreno, 814 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir.
       2016). We have upheld large upward variances based solely on the
       defendant’s extensive criminal history. Id. at 1288; see, e.g., United
       States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1241 (11th Cir. 2009) (upholding a
       120-month statutory maximum sentence despite a guidelines range
       of 30 to 37 months for a defendant who had been arrested
       26 times). Further, an upward variance well below the statutory
       maximum sentence indicates that a sentence is reasonable. United
       States v. Riley, 995 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir. 2021).
              Here, the district court imposed a substantively reasonable
       sentence, despite upwardly varying. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In
       fashioning Jackson’s sentence, the district court noted the nature
USCA11 Case: 22-12144      Document: 35-1       Date Filed: 04/12/2023      Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                   22-12144

       and circumstances of the offense and the seriousness of the offense
       when it noted his excessive speed and elusion of law enforcement
       that Jackson directly admitted to during the final revocation and
       sentencing hearing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A). Further, the dis-
       trict court acknowledged Jackson’s history and characteristics
       when it mentioned his repeated and lengthy history of violations
       through marijuana use, including multiple prior violation reports
       from the United States Probation Office for marijuana use. Id. §
       3553(a)(1). Additionally, the district court explicitly stated that it
       considered the statutory purposes of sentencing, the 18 U.S.C. §
       3553(a) factors, the parties’ arguments, and the information in the
       violation report. While the district court only discussed in any de-
       tail the nature, circumstances, and seriousness of Jackson’s offense
       and his history and characteristics, it was within the district court’s
       discretion to attach great weight to these factors over others, and
       it stated that it considered all the factors. Williams, 526 F.3d at 1322.
       Finally, Jackson’s sentence was below the maximum penalty,
       which this Court has stated indicates that his sentence is reasona-
       ble. Riley, 995 F.3d at 1278. Based on the foregoing, it was not un-
       reasonable for the district court to upwardly vary and sentence
       Jackson to 18 months’ imprisonment followed by 18 months’ su-
       pervised release. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Accordingly, we affirm.
              AFFIRMED.