Court Opinion

ID: 9877379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 16:00:42.115362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:48.954551
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14245    Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 09/27/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-14245
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       TREVOR ALEC HRUBY,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-00014-AW-GRJ-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14245       Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 09/27/2023      Page: 2 of 5

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   22-14245

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Trevor Hruby appeals the procedural and substantive rea-
       sonableness of his 1,440-month sentence for 4 counts of production
       of child pornography. Hruby argues that his sentence is unreason-
       able 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 mitigating facts of his case.
               When reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we first
       consider whether the district court committed a procedural error.
       Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A district court commits
       a procedural sentencing error when it imposes a sentence based on
       clearly erroneous facts, fails to calculate or improperly calculates
       the guideline range, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors, treats the
       Guidelines as mandatory, or fails to explain the chosen sentence.
       Id. While 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). Instead, 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).
             After ensuring that a sentence is procedurally sound, we
       then consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id.
       The district court must impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but
USCA11 Case: 22-14245       Document: 20-1       Date Filed: 09/27/2023      Page: 3 of 5

       22-14245                Opinion of the Court                            3

       not greater than necessary” to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
       promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford ade-
       quate 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).
               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. Nevertheless, a dis-
       trict court abuses its discretion if it “(1) fails to afford consideration
       to relevant factors that were due significant weight; (2) gives signif-
       icant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor; 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) (quota-
       tion marks omitted). Although we do not automatically presume
       that a sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable, we ordi-
       narily expect such a sentence to be reasonable. United States v.
       Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008).
               As an initial matter, the argument that Hruby frames as pro-
       cedural reasonableness challenges only the weight afforded to cer-
       tain § 3553(a) factors, and therefore addresses only substantive rea-
       sonableness. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In any event, to the extent
       that he argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing
USCA11 Case: 22-14245      Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 09/27/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-14245

       to consider certain § 3553(a) factors altogether, such as the need to
       avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, the court stated that it
       considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and it was not required
       to specifically discuss all of the § 3553(a) factors. Turner, 474 F.3d
       at 1281.
              As to substantive reasonableness, the court did not fail to
       consider relevant factors that were due significant weight, give sig-
       nificant weight to an improper factor, or clearly err in considering
       the proper factors. Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189. The court stated on the
       record that it had considered the arguments set forth at sentencing,
       the PSI, and the sentencing memorandum. The record also reflects
       that the court had considered all of the mitigation and reviewed
       both the sentencing memorandum and the letters from Hruby’s
       family, which explained each mitigating factor in detail. The court
       walked through the mitigation on the record, discussing the impact
       that Hruby’s youth, his victimhood, his lack of criminal history,
       and his acceptance of responsibility had on its decision. This expla-
       nation shows that the court considered each of the mitigating fac-
       tors that Hruby argues on appeal were ignored. The court further
       asserted that the severity of the offense conduct “[was] just too
       much to justify anything short of the sentence [imposed], notwith-
       standing that mitigation.” Doc. 51 at 2). The court stated that
       Hruby’s sexual interest in children made him a danger to society
       and expressed that, accordingly, the sentence imposed was neces-
       sary to protect the public. The court was permitted to attach
       greater weight to the seriousness of the offense conduct, which in-
       volved repeated sexual offenses against multiple children in
USCA11 Case: 22-14245      Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 09/27/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       22-14245               Opinion of the Court                         5

       Hruby’s care, and to the need to protect the public, than to the mit-
       igating evidence. See Kuhlman, 711 F.3d at 1327; (Doc. 51 at 26-27).
              Finally, Hruby’s sentence was within the guidelines recom-
       mendation, which further suggests that it was reasonable. See
       Hunt, 526 F.3d at 746. The district court did not abuse its discretion
       and Hruby’s sentence is reasonable.
             AFFIRMED.