Court Opinion

ID: 9911602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 16:01:25.812604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:51:32.318260
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13803    Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13803
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       SHAUNTAVUS BERKLIN,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-00048-TPB-NPM-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13803    Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023   Page: 2 of 7

       2                    Opinion of the Court                22-13803

                          ____________________

                                 No. 22-13804
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       SHAUNTAVUS BERKLIN,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-00104-TPB-KCD-1
                           ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Shauntavus Berklin appeals his 180–month total sentence
       following his convictions for knowingly possessing a firearm as a
       convicted felon and knowingly and intentionally distributing a
USCA11 Case: 22-13803         Document: 35-1        Date Filed: 12/20/2023         Page: 3 of 7

       22-13803                  Opinion of the Court                                3

       controlled substance. He argues that his total sentence was unrea-
       sonable because the district court varied upward from his applica-
       ble guideline range without sufficiently factoring in his individual
       characteristics, disproportionately weighed the fact that he com-
       mitted the instant offenses shortly after being released from a prior
       term of imprisonment, did not properly weigh the various
       18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced his codefendant to a
       shorter term of imprisonment. 1
              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). The appellant has the burden of proving that the
       “sentence is unreasonable in light of the entire record, the § 3553(a)
       factors, and the substantial deference afforded sentencing courts.”
       United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015).
       “[A] district court abuses its discretion when 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 fac-
       tors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en
       banc).
            In reviewing a sentence for reasonableness, we first consider
       whether the district court committed any significant procedural

       1 Berklin initially appealed the determination of his offense level as well. The

       Government successfully moved to dismiss that portion of his appeal based on
       appeal waivers.
USCA11 Case: 22-13803      Document: 35-1      Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13803

       error and next consider whether the sentence was substantively
       reasonable. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
               Section 3553(c) requires that “[t]he sentencing judge . . . set
       forth [sufficient reasoning] to satisfy the appellate court that he has
       considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for ex-
       ercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United
       States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).
               We will measure substantive reasonableness by considering
       the totality of the circumstances and whether the sentence achieves
       the sentencing purposes stated in § 3553(a). United States v. Sarras,
       575 F.3d 1191, 1219 (11th Cir. 2009). The sentencing court must
       impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to
       reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law,
       provide just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct,
       protect the public from future crimes of the defendant, and provide
       the defendant with needed educational or vocational training or
       medical care. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The court must also consider
       the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
       characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available,
       the sentencing guidelines range, pertinent policy statements of the
       Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentenc-
       ing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id.
       § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
              We will only vacate a defendant’s sentence as unreasonable
       if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that the district
       court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the
USCA11 Case: 22-13803      Document: 35-1      Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 5 of 7

       22-13803               Opinion of the Court                          5

       § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range
       of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United
       States v. Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627, 636 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting
       United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009)).
               The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is commit-
       ted to the sound discretion of the district court. United States v.
       Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007). We will not second guess
       the weight that the district court gave to a § 3553(a) factor so long
       as the sentence is reasonable in light of all the circumstances.
       United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008). In fact, a
       district court is permitted to attach great weight to one § 3553(a)
       factor over others. Overstreet, 713 F.3d at 638.
              Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion because
       Berklin’s total sentence was reasonable. First, the district court did
       not commit a procedural error. Specifically, there is no indication
       that the court here failed to afford consideration to any relevant
       factor that was due significant weight, that it gave significant
       weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or that it committed a
       clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors. Irey, 612
       F.3d at 1189.
               Second, Berklin’s total sentence was substantively reasona-
       ble. The district court sufficiently explained the reasons it believed
       an upward variance was warranted, noting that it considered the §
       3553(a) factors and determined that Berklin’s total sentence was
       sufficient but not greater than necessary. It expressed concern for
       the danger involved with his instant offenses, including the fact that
USCA11 Case: 22-13803     Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023    Page: 6 of 7

       6                     Opinion of the Court                22-13803

       he was involved in a high-speed car chase in 2021, possessed fenta-
       nyl, which was a dangerous drug, and held people at gunpoint dur-
       ing a home invasion in 2020. It also emphasized his consistent track
       record of offending and reoffending, which demonstrated that he
       presented a danger to the public and did not care about complying
       with the law. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(C). Although the court
       sentenced him above his applicable guideline range, it also indi-
       cated that it would have imposed a longer sentence if he had not
       pled guilty, demonstrating that his plea agreement beneficially af-
       fected his total sentence. The court also recognized his substance-
       abuse history when explaining his total sentence. Further, the
       court was not bound to the government’s request to sentence him
       within his applicable guideline range.
              Lastly, Berklin’s argument that his co-defendant’s sentence
       was disproportionate to his own is factually and legally unsup-
       ported, regardless of the standard of review. Berklin’s PSI showed
       that Thurman was convicted of only 1 count, unlike Berklin, who
       pled guilty to 4 counts, and Thurman received a 10–year sentence,
       which, according to the district court, was the statutory maximum
       he faced by law. Thus, despite Thurman receiving a sentence 60
       months less than that of Berklin, there was no indication that the
       disparity in their sentences was unwarranted. See 18 U.S.C. §
       3553(a)(6).
              Therefore, the district court did not make “a clear error of
       judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors,” and thus Berklin’s to-
       tal sentence was reasonable.
USCA11 Case: 22-13803   Document: 35-1   Date Filed: 12/20/2023   Page: 7 of 7

       22-13803           Opinion of the Court                     7

             AFFIRMED.