Court Opinion

ID: 9940741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 15:01:23.949313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:44.208276
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10766    Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 02/15/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10766
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DANIEL MUSEAU,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20436-KMM-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10766      Document: 35-1       Date Filed: 02/15/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10766

       Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Daniel Museau, proceeding with counsel, appeals his
       120-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and
       ammunition. He argues that the sentence is substantively unrea-
       sonable because (1) he accepted responsibility for his crime, and (2)
       the district court gave insufficient weight to certain 18 U.S.C. §
       3553(a) factors.
               We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for
       abuse of discretion. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1188–89
       (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). A court abuses its discretion if it does not
       give relevant factors due weight, significantly weighs an irrelevant
       or improper factor, or errs in its consideration of sentencing fac-
       tors. Id. at 1189. We vacate a sentence as substantively unreason-
       able only when left with a “definite and firm conviction” that the
       district court made a clear error of judgment. Id. at 1190. The party
       challenging the sentence has the burden to demonstrate that the
       sentence is unreasonable. Id. at 1191 n.16.
              A sentencing court must “impose a sentence sufficient, but
       not greater than necessary,” to reflect the seriousness of the of-
       fense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, deter
       crime, and protect the public. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court must
       also consider “the nature and circumstances of the offense” and the
       defendant’s individual history and characteristics. Id. A Guide-
       lines-range sentence is expected—but not automatically
USCA11 Case: 23-10766     Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 02/15/2024    Page: 3 of 3

       23-10766              Opinion of the Court                        3

       presumed—to be reasonable. United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739,
       746 (11th Cir. 2008). The weight committed to each § 3553(a) fac-
       tor is committed to the district court’s sound discretion. United
       States v. Johnson, 803 F.3d 610, 618 (11th Cir. 2015).
              Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion because
       it imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See Irey, 612 F.3d
       at 1188–89. The district court considered Museau’s history of vio-
       lent crime, a lack of deterrence from sentences for prior convic-
       tions, and the need to protect society. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It
       also stated explicitly that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors.
       The court had discretion to significantly weigh Museau’s history
       and the need to protect the public from crime. See Johnson, 803 F.3d
       at 618. Museau has not, therefore, demonstrated that the district
       court made a clear error of judgment or weighed an improper fac-
       tor. See Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190–91 & n.16.
             AFFIRMED