Court Opinion

ID: 9880108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 19:00:47.50511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:52:16.739503
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12804    Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 09/27/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12804
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       THOMAS COELHO,
       a.k.a. Thomas Coehlo,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cr-00123-TPB-CPT-1
USCA11 Case: 22-12804      Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 09/27/2023     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12804

                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Thomas Coelho appeals his sentence of 120 months’ impris-
       onment for wire fraud. Coelho argues that the district court failed
       to adequately explain its sentencing decision or to consider his mit-
       igation argument. He further argues that the district court failed
       to enter a written statement of reasons that sufficiently explained
       its reasoning for imposing a sentence outside the guideline range.
                                         I.
              Where a defendant challenges a sentence as procedurally
       unreasonable based on the adequacy of the district court’s explana-
       tion, we review de novo, even in the absence of a timely objection
       at sentencing. United States v. Oudomsine, 57 F.4th 1262, 1265 (11th
       Cir. 2023).
               A sentence is procedurally reasonable when the district
       court, among other things, duly considers the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
       factors and adequately explains its chosen sentence. Gall v. United
       States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The relevant § 3553(a) factors include
       the nature and circumstances of the offense; the history and char-
       acteristics of the defendant; the applicable sentencing guideline
       range; the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the
       offense, protect the public, and deter the defendant; and the need
       to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a);
       see Gall, 552 U.S. at 50 n.6. The district court must “state in open
USCA11 Case: 22-12804      Document: 35-1       Date Filed: 09/27/2023     Page: 3 of 5

       22-12804                Opinion of the Court                          3

       court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence” that
       it selects. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). If a court selects a sentence outside
       of the guideline range, it must describe the reason for its variance
       with specificity. Id. § 3553(c)(2).
               While a district court must consider the § 3553(a) factors in
       determining a sentence, it is not required to state in its explanation
       that it has evaluated each factor individually. United States v. Ortiz-
       Delgado, 451 F.3d 752, 758 (11th Cir. 2006). An acknowledgment
       by the district court that it has considered the § 3553(a) factors is
       sufficient. United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1281 (11th Cir.
       2007). Further, the district court must set forth a sufficient expla-
       nation to satisfy the appellate court that it has “considered the par-
       ties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis” for its sentencing deci-
       sion. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356. But the court is under
       no duty to explain the sentence in “great detail.” United States v.
       Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1195 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). A district court’s
       failure to specifically discuss a defendant’s mitigation argument
       does not mean that the court has “erroneously ‘ignored’ or failed
       to consider this evidence” in determining a sentence. United States
       v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 833 (11th Cir. 2007).
              Here, Coelho’s sentence is not procedurally unreasonable
       because the district court adequately explained the sentence im-
       posed. The court stated, in open court, that it had heard from all
       of the parties and that it had considered the PSI and all of the §
       3553(a) sentencing factors. Turner, 474 F.3d at 1281. The court also
       relied on numerous speciﬁc § 3553(a) factors in explaining its
USCA11 Case: 22-12804      Document: 35-1      Date Filed: 09/27/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12804

       sentence, including protection of the public, promotion of respect
       for the law, and reﬂection of the seriousness of the oﬀense. Gall,
       552 U.S. at 50.
              Coelho has also not shown that the district court did not ad-
       equately consider his mitigation argument in rendering its sentenc-
       ing decision. The record shows that the court listened to Coelho’s
       mitigation argument and acknowledged that it had heard from all
       of the parties prior to explaining its sentencing decision. Moreover,
       the court indirectly addressed Coelho’s mitigation argument that
       the loss amount was at the low end of the range warranting a 16-
       level enhancement when it cited the loss amount as a reason for its
       upward variance. The full scope of the record and the court’s ex-
       planation shows that it considered the arguments of the parties,
       despite the fact that it did not explicitly address Coelho’s particular
       mitigation argument. Rita, 551 U.S. at 356; Amedeo, 487 F.3d at 833.
       Thus, the district court did not impose a procedurally unreasonable
       sentence.
                                         II.
              Claims that a district court’s explanation of its sentencing de-
       cision failed to satisfy its burden under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) are
       reviewed de novo. United States v. Parks, 823 F.3d 990, 996-97 (11th
       Cir. 2016). Further, we have adopted a “per se rule of reversal for
       § 3553(c)(2) errors.” Id. at 997.
              A district court imposing a sentence outside the guideline
       range must state the specific reasons for its variance and must in-
       clude this reason in a statement of reasons form issued under 28
USCA11 Case: 22-12804      Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 09/27/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       22-12804               Opinion of the Court                         5

       U.S.C. § 994. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). Under § 3553(c), the district
       court is required to set forth a sufficient explanation to satisfy the
       appellate court that it has “considered the parties’ arguments and
       has a reasoned basis” for its sentencing decision. Rita, 551 U.S. at
       356.
              Here, the district court’s explanation in its statement of rea-
       sons form was sufficient under § 3553(c)(2). The court checked
       boxes identifying multiple § 3553(a) factors that supported its deci-
       sion to impose an upward variance—including lack of remorse, to
       reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the
       law and provide just punishment for the offense, and to protect the
       public from further crimes—and wrote a more detailed explana-
       tion for its decision—including noting that Coelho continued to try
       to contact and influence potential witnesses and noting his calls
       from jail suggesting that he was going to lie about having a drug
       condition to try to shorten his sentence—all of which substantially
       matched its oral explanation at the sentencing hearing.
             AFFIRMED.