Court Opinion

ID: 9377626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 16:01:22.335953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:15.281387
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11148    Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 03/08/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11148
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       GREGORY WHITMAN,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cr-00026-TKW-MJF-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11148      Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 03/08/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11148

       Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Gregory Whitman challenges his 420-month total sentence
       for attempted production of child pornography, in violation of 18
       U.S.C. § 2251(a), receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18
       U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), and commission of a felony involving a mi-
       nor—i.e., attempted production of child pornography—by a sexual
       offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2260A. He argues that his total
       sentence is substantively unreasonable.
              We consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
       under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
       States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The weight given to each 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound discretion of the district
       court, and we will not substitute our judgment in weighing the rel-
       evant factors. United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir.
       2007). We will overturn a sentence as substantively unreasonable
       only if we are “left with the definite and firm conviction” that a
       clear error of judgment was made by the district court in weighing
       the § 3553(a) factors, and the resulting sentence is outside the range
       of reasonable sentences. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190
       (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
              Although we do not presume a sentence falling within the
       guideline range is reasonable, we ordinarily expect such a sentence
       to be reasonable. United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th
USCA11 Case: 22-11148      Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 03/08/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-11148                Opinion of the Court                         3

       Cir. 2008). A sentence imposed well below the statutory maximum
       may indicate reasonableness. United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d
       1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
               Under § 3553(a), a sentencing court must impose a sentence
       that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to reflect the se-
       riousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide
       just punishment for the offense, to afford adequate deterrence, and
       to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. 18
       U.S.C. § 3553(a). In addition, the court must consider, among
       other factors, the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
       history and characteristics of the defendant. Id. § 3553(a)(1).
              Here, Whitman’s within-guideline-range total sentence for
       child sex crimes is substantively reasonable. First, 420 months was
       on the low end of his guideline range, and a sentence within the
       guideline range is ordinarily expected be reasonable. Moreover,
       the crime here is very serious—i.e. attempted production of child
       pornography involving a minor by a sex offender. Second, 420
       months was also well below the combined statutory maximum of
       720 months. See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e), 2260A; Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at
       1324. Third, the district court was permitted to assign greater
       weight to the seriousness of Whitman’s offense and the need to
       protect the public than to his history of being sexually abused and
       advanced age. Amedeo, 487 F.3d at 832; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
              Accordingly, we affirm.
              AFFIRMED.