Court Opinion

ID: 9389496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 18:01:56.721171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:27.990439
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10845    Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 04/25/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10845
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       VICTOR MANUEL HERNANDEZ,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cr-00058-KKM-TGW-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10845      Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 04/25/2023     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10845

       Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Victor Hernandez appeals his total sentence of 324 months’
       imprisonment for 5 counts related to possession with intent to dis-
       tribute heroin and mixtures containing methamphetamine and co-
       caine, as well as possession of firearms and ammunition by a felon.
       Hernandez argues that his sentence was substantively unreasona-
       ble because he was young at the time of the offense and the rele-
       vant methamphetamine Guidelines are excessively punitive and
       not based on empirical data.
              When reviewing a sentence for substantive reasonableness,
       we assess the totality of the circumstances under a deferential
       abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
       (2007). 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 fac-
       tor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the
       proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th
       Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted).
              The party challenging the sentence bears the burden of
       showing the sentence is unreasonable based on the record and the
       statutory factors specified in § 3553(a). United States v. Tome, 611
       F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). The factors due consideration un-
       der statute include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the
USCA11 Case: 22-10845     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2023    Page: 3 of 5

       22-10845               Opinion of the Court                        3

       history and characteristics of the defendant, the offense’s serious-
       ness, adequate deterrence, and protecting the public, the guideline
       range, among others. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court does
       not need to give all the factors equal weight and is given discretion
       to attach great weight to one factor over another. United States v.
       Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015). Although we
       do not apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within
       the guideline range, we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be rea-
       sonable. United States v. Coglianese, 34 F.4th 1002, 1009 (11th Cir.
       2022).
               In Kimbrough v. United States, the Supreme Court
       acknowledged that sentencing courts may vary from the guideline
       range based on policy considerations, including disagreement with
       portions of the drug-sentencing Guidelines that appear to lack em-
       pirical foundation and produce excessive sentences. 552 U.S. 85,
       101–02 (2007). Although Kimbrough empowered courts with dis-
       cretion to vary from the guidelines range on policy grounds, “it did
       not command them to exercise it.” Dell v. United States, 710 F.3d
       1267, 1279 (11th Cir. 2013).
             Here, Hernandez’s sentence is not substantively unreasona-
       ble. The court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the serious-
       ness of the offenses, the need to protect the public, Hernandez’s
       criminal history and characteristics, and the need for additional de-
       terrence more heavily than issues with the methamphetamine sen-
       tencing guidelines and Hernandez’s young age. Thus, the court’s
USCA11 Case: 22-10845     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2023    Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-10845

       decision to impose a sentence within the guideline range rather
       than granting a downward variance was not unreasonable.
              Contrary to Hernandez’s argument on appeal, the district
       court did not fail to afford consideration to relevant factors that
       were due significant weight. Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189. Rather, the
       court recognized the arguments raised by Hernandez on appeal in
       the initial sentencing hearing, acknowledging the sentencing dis-
       parities created by the methamphetamine guidelines and the role
       of youth in precipitating criminal conduct. The court discussed
       Hernandez’s age as a relevant characteristic for the purposes of sen-
       tencing but stated that the lengthy imprisonment sentence was
       warranted by Hernandez’s actions even though the sentence
       would cost him freedom and opportunity for the middle part of his
       life. Furthermore, the court stated that it understood the policy
       disagreements about how the Guidelines have weighted metham-
       phetamine improperly without empirical basis and was aware of its
       power under Kimbrough to vary from the guideline range. The
       court properly recognized that while it had the discretion to vary
       downward based on policy disagreements with the Guidelines, it
       was not required to do so. Dell, 710 F.3d at 1279.
             And the district court explained at length why a downward
       variance was not warranted under the circumstances here. The
       court noted that this was an extremely serious offense that in-
       volved an “enormous amount of drugs” and “an enormous
       amount of firearms.” The court further noted that the conse-
       quences of drug addiction for society, individuals, and families
USCA11 Case: 22-10845     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2023    Page: 5 of 5

       22-10845               Opinion of the Court                        5

       discouraged a downward variance out of concern for public safety.
       Hernandez’s repeated criminal conduct while on bond after his first
       arrest was an “extraordinarily aggravating” factor in the court’s as-
       sessment of his criminal history and personal characteristics and
       suggested a significant sentence was necessary to deter future mis-
       conduct. The court assessed the totality of the circumstances, giv-
       ing some weight to Hernandez’s arguments but determining that
       other proper considerations weighed against a downward variance.
       See, e.g., Rosales Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254 (noting that the decision
       of how much weight to assign a sentencing factor falls within the
       court’s discretion). This Court ordinarily expects a sentence within
       the guideline range to be reasonable, Coglianese, 34 F.4th at 1009,
       and the district court did not abuse its discretion here by determin-
       ing that the totality of the factors that it considered warranted a
       sentence of 324 months, the low end of the guideline range. Thus,
       the sentence is substantively reasonable.
             AFFIRMED.