Court Opinion

ID: 9963886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 15:01:28.684304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:03.220374
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11891    Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 04/26/2024   Page: 1 of 6

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11891
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MADERSON ALRICHE,
       a.k.a. Jeﬀson Appiah,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-20217-KMW-1
USCA11 Case: 23-11891       Document: 37-1        Date Filed: 04/26/2024       Page: 2 of 6

       2                        Opinion of the Court                    23-11891

                              ____________________

       Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Maderson Alriche appeals his 13-month sentence imposed
       upon revocation of his supervised release. Alriche asserts his sen-
       tence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court did
       not consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or any mitigating cir-
       cumstances, and the court primarily relied on contested facts. Al-
       riche also contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Af-
       ter review, 1 we affirm.
                     I. PROCEDURAL REASONABLENESS
               A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court
       fails to consider certain 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v.
       Trailer, 827 F.3d 933, 936 (11th Cir. 2016). The factors a court
       should consider upon the revocation of supervised release include
       the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and char-
       acteristics of the defendant, adequate deterrence, and the need to
       protect the public. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
       (a)(2)(B-C). Although the district court must consider the § 3553(a)
       factors, it need not state on the record that it has explicitly consid-
       ered each of the factors or discuss each in detail. United States v.

       1 A sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is reviewed for

       reasonableness. United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir.
       2006).
USCA11 Case: 23-11891       Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 04/26/2024      Page: 3 of 6

       23-11891                Opinion of the Court                           3

       Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2013). The adequacy of a
       sentencing judge’s explanation of the sentence will be upheld if the
       “record showed that the judge listened to the evidence and argu-
       ments and was aware of the various factors the defendant put for-
       ward for a lesser sentence.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1195
       (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
               A district court’s sentence is also procedurally unreasonable
       if the court failed to adequately explain the chosen sentence.
       Trailer, 827 F.3d at 936. A district court, however, is not “required
       to articulate [its] findings and reasoning with great detail or in any
       detail for that matter.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1195. Even if the district
       court fails to articulate explicitly that it has considered the § 3553(a)
       factors, the sentence is not rendered unreasonable if the record in-
       dicates the court did, in fact, consider a number of the sentencing
       factors. United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936, 944 (11th Cir. 2007).
               Alriche did not object to his sentence on the grounds the dis-
       trict court failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors, or that it improp-
       erly relied on contested facts, so we review his procedural reason-
       ableness arguments for plain error. See United States v. Vandergrift,
       754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining if a party does not
       make an argument of procedural reasonableness before the district
       court, we ordinarily review only for plain error). As to Alriche’s
       first argument, the district court is not required to recite the
       § 3553(a) factors by name, so long as the record shows that it con-
       sidered several of them. Dorman, 488 F.3d at 944. The court stated
       it reviewed the Presentence Investigation Report and the
USCA11 Case: 23-11891     Document: 37-1      Date Filed: 04/26/2024    Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                23-11891

       supervised release violation report, which pertain to Alriche’s his-
       tory and characteristics and the nature and circumstances of the in-
       stant offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Second, the court said it con-
       sidered the mitigating factors set forth by Alriche, which also per-
       tain to his history and characteristics. Id. Third, the court consid-
       ered the Government’s argument, which addressed the need to
       protect the public from further crimes by Alriche. 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a)(2)(C). Fourth, the district court’s finding that a Guide-
       lines sentence was appropriate, “because it [seemed] like the same
       mistakes [kept] getting made in the same way over and over and
       over again,” shows the court considered deterrence in imposing its
       sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). Finally, the district court ex-
       plained it considered “the statement of all the parties.” This
       acknowledgement demonstrates the court “listened to the evi-
       dence and arguments and was aware of the various factors the de-
       fendant put forward for a lesser sentence.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1195.
              As to Alriche’s second argument, that the district court im-
       properly relied on contested facts, this argument is meritless. Al-
       riche admitted to possessing, receiving, or retaining stolen credit
       cards or debit cards. Alriche failed to meet his burden of showing
       the district court’s sentence was procedurally unreasonable under
       plain-error review. See Vandergrift, 754 F.3d at 1307.
                   II. SUBSTANTIVE REASONABLENESS
              When reviewing for substantive reasonableness, the party
       challenging a sentence bears the burden of proving the sentence is
       unreasonable in light of the record, the factors listed in 18 U.S.C.
USCA11 Case: 23-11891      Document: 37-1       Date Filed: 04/26/2024     Page: 5 of 6

       23-11891                Opinion of the Court                          5

       § 3553(a), and the substantial deference afforded sentencing courts.
       United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015).
       The 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
       factors.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189 (quotation marks omitted).
              The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is commit-
       ted to the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not
       substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant factors.
       Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254. The district court also does not
       have to give all the factors equal weight and is given discretion to
       attach great weight to one factor over another. Id. Along with the
       § 3553(a) factors, the district court should also consider the partic-
       ularized facts of the case and the Guidelines range. Id. at 1259-60.
              Alriche’s within-Guidelines-range sentence is substantively
       reasonable. Alriche’s claim the district court ignored mitigating
       factors is unsupported by the record. As discussed above, the court
       considered several § 3553(a) factors, along with the various factors
       that Alriche put forward for a lesser sentence. Still, despite Al-
       riche’s post-release progress, the district court was within its discre-
       tion to heavily weigh the factors of deterrence and the history and
       characteristics of the defendant. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254.
       Because Alriche’s 13-month sentence was within the Guidelines
       range, there is an expectation of reasonableness. See United States
       v. Wayerski, 624 F.3d 1342, 1353 (11th Cir. 2010) (stating there “is
USCA11 Case: 23-11891     Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 04/26/2024    Page: 6 of 6

       6                     Opinion of the Court                 23-11891

       an expectation of reasonableness when a district court imposes a
       sentence within the applicable Guidelines range”). Alriche has
       failed to show the district court abused its discretion in weighing
       the § 3553(a) factors. See Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1256; see also
       Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189. Accordingly, we affirm Alriche’s sentence.
             AFFIRMED.