Court Opinion

ID: 9396824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 19:00:36.053213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.223378
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12050    Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 05/23/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12050
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       MICHAEL MIZRACHY,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cr-60079-AMC-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12050      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 05/23/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                 22-12050

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Michael Mizrachy appeals from his 96-month sentence,
       amounting to a 25-month upward variance, for possession of child
       pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and
       2252(b)(2). He argues that the district court abused its discretion in
       imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. Mizrachy argues
       that the district court incorrectly viewed his career as a pediatrician
       as an aggravating factor, and that the district court placed too much
       emphasis on the severity of the offense which the Guidelines had
       already considered.
               We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a defer-
       ential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
       38, 51 (2007). A defendant may preserve an objection to the sub-
       stantive reasonableness of a sentence by advocating for a shorter
       sentence before the district court, thereby arguing that a shorter
       sentence would have been sufficient, and a longer sentence greater
       than necessary, to comply with statutory purposes of punish-
       ment. Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 767
       (2020). On substantive reasonableness review, we vacate the sen-
       tence only 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 sentence based on the
       facts of the case. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th
       Cir. 2010) (en banc). A sentence imposed well below the statutory
USCA11 Case: 22-12050      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 05/23/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-12050               Opinion of the Court                         3

       maximum penalty is an indicator of a reasonable sentence. United
       States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
              The 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that the court must weigh
       include, in relevant part, the nature and circumstances of the of-
       fense and the defendant’s history and characteristics, the need for
       the sentence to adequately deter criminal conduct, and the need
       for the sentence to protect the public from further crimes of the
       defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2).
               Although the district court must consider the § 3553(a) fac-
       tors, it is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly
       considered each of the factors or to discuss each of them. United
       States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2013). Instead,
       an acknowledgment by the district court that it considered the fac-
       tors is sufficient. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1281 (11th
       Cir. 2007). Moreover, the weight given to each factor lies within
       the district court’s sound discretion, and it may reasonably attach
       great weight to a single factor. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d at 1327. A dis-
       trict court, however, abuses its discretion if 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.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189.
             We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre-
       tion. While the district court had discretion to impose a lower sen-
       tence, it was reasonable for the district court to find that a
       96-month term of imprisonment was sufficient but not greater than
USCA11 Case: 22-12050     Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 05/23/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-12050

       necessary. The district court stated that it had considered the
       § 3553(a) factors, and it found that the aggravating factors—includ-
       ing the severity of the offense and that Mizrachy was acutely aware
       of the vulnerability of children because he was a pediatrician—out-
       weighed the mitigating factors. Accordingly, we affirm Mizrachy’s
       sentence.
             AFFIRMED.