Court Opinion

ID: 9838374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-06 13:00:51.188283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:58.971415
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14089    Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 09/06/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]

                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-14089
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       FRANKIE DAVID VARGAS, II,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20479-DPG-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14089      Document: 24-1         Date Filed: 09/06/2023   Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                   22-14089

       Before WILSON, LUCK and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Appellant Frankie Vargas II appeals the substantive reasona-
       bleness of his 324-month sentence imposed by the district court fol-
       lowing his guilty plea for violations of Hobbs Act robbery, 18
       U.S.C. § 1951(a), and brandishing and discharging a firearm in fur-
       therance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). Vargas
       argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the
       district court abused its discretion in assigning weight to the 18
       U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and failed to focus on the individualized,
       particularized specific facts of his case. Having read the parties’
       briefs and reviewed the record, we affirm Vargas’s sentence.
                                             I.
               We review the reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse
       of discretion standard. United States v Rodriguez, 34 F.4th 961, 969
       (11th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 143 S. Ct. 580 (2023). “A
       district court abuses its discretion and imposes a substantively un-
       reasonable sentence only when it (1) fails to afford consideration to
       relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives signifi-
       cant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a
       clear error of judgment in considering the proper factors.” Id. 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).
USCA11 Case: 22-14089      Document: 24-1          Date Filed: 09/06/2023   Page: 3 of 5

       22-14089                Opinion of the Court                          3

                                             II.
              The district court must impose a sentence that is “sufficient,
       but not greater than necessary” to reflect the seriousness of the of-
       fense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford
       adequate deterrence, protect the public, and provide the defendant
       with any needed correctional treatment or training. 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a)(2). It must also consider the nature and circumstances of
       the offense, the defendant’s history and characteristics, the kinds of
       sentences available, the applicable guidelines range, any pertinent
       policy statements, and the need to avoid sentencing disparities be-
       tween similarly-situated defendants. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
              Although the district court must consider the 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a) factors, 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). In-
       stead, an acknowledgment by the district court that it considered
       the factors 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.
              Furthermore, we do not automatically presume that a sen-
       tence within the guidelines range is reasonable, but we ordinarily
       expect such a sentence to be reasonable. United States v. Hunt, 526
       F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008). A sentence imposed well below the
       statutory maximum penalty is another indicator of a reasonable
USCA11 Case: 22-14089     Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 09/06/2023   Page: 4 of 5

       4                     Opinion of the Court                22-14089

       sentence. See United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th
       Cir. 2008).
                                           III.
               The record demonstrates that the district court did not
       abuse its discretion in sentencing Vargas to 324 months’ imprison-
       ment. The district court articulated its balancing when it noted
       that defense counsel emphasized Vargas’s traumatic childhood and
       life-long struggle with drugs. The district court stated that these
       factors were key for it imposing a sentence at the low end of the
       guidelines range. However, the district court noted that although
       Vargas’s recent crimes were within a short time of each other, it
       was significant that Vargas had forever altered the victims’ lives.
       The factual background in the PSI showed that Vargas stole a fire-
       arm while breaking into nine parked cars, robbed a gas station by
       brandishing a firearm, invaded and ransacked a home, threatened
       a mother inside her home, shot the son, and carjacked a vehicle
       before smashing into another car during his escape. We conclude
       that the district court’s measured consideration of all 18 U.S.C. §
       3553 factors resulted in a sentence “sufficient but no greater than
       necessary” to achieve the goals of sentencing.
              The reasonableness of the sentence is also bolstered by the
       fact that it is within the guidelines range. As noted, we expect a
       sentence within the guidelines range to be reasonable. See Hunt,
       526 F.3d at 746. The district court imposed a 120-month sentence
       for the Hobbs Act robbery, a sentence at the low-end of the 120-to-
       150-month guidelines range. The district court also imposed a
USCA11 Case: 22-14089      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 09/06/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       22-14089               Opinion of the Court                         5

       sentence at the bottom of the guidelines for the firearm convic-
       tions, which had mandatory minimum sentences. See United States
       v. Smith, 967 F.3d 1196, 1215 (11th Cir. 2020) (stating that “doing
       what a statute requires is not an abuse of discretion”). We con-
       clude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and imposed
       a substantively reasonable sentence. Accordingly, based on the
       aforementioned reasons, we affirm the district court’s imposition
       of Vargas’s 324-month sentence.
              AFFIRMED.