Court Opinion

ID: 9894615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 15:01:38.010321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:05.357483
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12030    Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 11/02/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12030
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       KEIVON MCBRIDE,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cr-60095-RAR-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12030        Document: 41-1         Date Filed: 11/02/2023       Page: 2 of 7

       2                         Opinion of the Court                     22-12030

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Keivon McBride, proceeding with counsel, challenges his
       below-guideline 480-months sentence for the production of child
       pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and distribution
       of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). In par-
       ticular, he contends that the district court committed procedural
       error in imposing the sentence and that the sentence itself is sub-
       stantively unreasonable. Because no reversible error has been
       shown, we affirm McBride’s sentence.
                                              I
              McBride pleaded guilty to production of child pornography,
       in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and distribution of child pornog-
       raphy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The probation officer’s
       Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) assigned McBride a total-
       offense level of 43 1 and a criminal-history category of I. Based on
       McBride’s criminal-history category, total-offense level, and the ap-
       plicable statutory-maximum sentence, McBride’s guidelines term
       of imprisonment was 3,840 months. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(b).
             At the sentencing hearing, the district court accepted the
       PSI’s calculation of the applicable guidelines range. After

       1 The PSI actually calculated McBride’s offense level to be 51. But an offense
       level of “more than 43 is to be treated as an offense level of 43” because the
       sentencing table includes only offense levels up to 43. U.S.S.G. § 5A, cmt. 2.
USCA11 Case: 22-12030       Document: 41-1       Date Filed: 11/02/2023       Page: 3 of 7

       22-12030                 Opinion of the Court                            3

       considering the parties’ arguments at sentencing, the totality of the
       circumstances, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court
       sentenced McBride to 480 months’ imprisonment.
              This Court must first ensure that the district court commit-
       ted no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate or
       improperly calculating the guideline range, treating the Guidelines
       as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a
       sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
       explain the chosen sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
       (2007). If the court’s sentencing decision is procedurally sound, this
       Court then considers the substantive reasonableness of the sen-
       tence. Id. We consider the substantive reasonableness of a sen-
       tence under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. 2 United
       States v. Butler, 39 F.4th 1349, 1354–55 (11th Cir. 2022). In review-
       ing the reasonableness of a sentence, we will not substitute our
       own judgment for that of the district court and will affirm a sen-
       tence so long as the court’s decision was “in the ballpark of permis-
       sible outcomes.” Id. at 1355 (citation omitted). The defendant
       bears the burden of showing that the sentence is unreasonable in
       light of the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States
       v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).

       2 The government contends that McBride’s procedural-error argument should

       be reviewed only for plain error because McBride never expressly raised the
       specific objections he now makes on appeal. We need not decide this issue,
       however, because we conclude that McBride’s argument fails under an abuse-
       of-discretion standard.
USCA11 Case: 22-12030       Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 11/02/2023      Page: 4 of 7

       4                       Opinion of the Court                   22-12030

                                          II
              McBride contends that the district court committed proce-
       dural error in imposing his sentence and that the sentence itself is
       substantively unreasonable.
                                          A
              McBride first argues that the district court committed pro-
       cedural error in imposing his sentence. A district court commits
       procedural error when it incorrectly calculates the guidelines
       range, treats the guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the 18
       U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, selects a sentence based on clearly errone-
       ous facts, or fails to explain the chosen sentence. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d
       at 1323; Gall,552 U.S. at 51. McBride contends, in particular, that
       the district court did not consider the sentencing factors set forth
       in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and failed to explain its chosen sentence.
              McBride failed to demonstrate that the district court com-
       mitted procedural error. The court explicitly stated that it consid-
       ered the statements of all parties, the PSI, and the § 3553(a) factors.
       See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Butler, 39 F.4th at 1356 (“[A] district court’s
       acknowledgement that it has considered the § 3553(a) factors and
       the parties’ arguments is sufficient.”); Tr. of Sentencing, Doc. 53 at
       46. It also provided an adequate explanation for McBride’s total
       sentence by discussing the relevant sentencing data it reviewed to
       avoid nationwide sentencing disparities, the unique nature and cir-
       cumstances of his offenses, his lack of criminal history, the sexual
       abuse he endured, the need to promote respect for the law and gen-
       eral deterrence due to the seriousness of his offenses, and the need
USCA11 Case: 22-12030      Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 11/02/2023     Page: 5 of 7

       22-12030               Opinion of the Court                          5

       to stop abuse of young women via social media. See Tr. of Sentenc-
       ing, Doc. 53 at 36–45; Gall, 552 U.S. at 46–47, 50–51; Butler, 39 F.4th
       at 1356. Therefore, the court demonstrated that it properly
       weighed the relevant § 3553(a) factors. See § 3553(a); Butler, 39
       F.4th at 1356.
                                         B
               McBride next challenges his sentence as substantively unrea-
       sonable. When reviewing a sentence for its substantive reasona-
       bleness, we consider the “totality of the circumstances,” “including
       . . . whether the statutory factors in § 3553(a) support the sentence
       in question.” Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324. “The party challenging
       the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is
       unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors.”
       United States v. Early, 686 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2012).
               Under § 3553(a), the district court must impose a sentence
       that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to reflect the pur-
       poses of § 3553(a)(2), including the need for the sentence to reflect
       the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to
       provide just punishment, to afford adequate deterrence, and to pro-
       tect the public from further crimes of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. §
       3553(a). Additionally, the court must consider, among other fac-
       tors, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and
       characteristics of the defendant, and the need to avoid unwarranted
       sentence disparities among similarly situated defendants. Id. We
       will not vacate a sentence on substantive-reasonableness grounds
       unless “we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the
USCA11 Case: 22-12030      Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 11/02/2023     Page: 6 of 7

       6                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12030

       district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the
       § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range
       of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United
       States v. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d 567, 611 (11th Cir. 2020) (cita-
       tion omitted). The court imposes a substantively unreasonable
       sentence when it fails to afford consideration to relevant factors
       that were due significant weight, gives significant weight to an im-
       proper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in
       considering the proper factors. Butler, 39 F.4th at 1355. The court
       commits a clear error of judgment when it weighs the § 3553(a)
       factors unreasonably. Id. The weight given to each factor is com-
       mitted to the sound discretion of the court, and the court may at-
       tach great weight to one factor over the others. Id.
              McBride has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is sub-
       stantively unreasonable. He argues that it was unreasonable be-
       cause it was disproportionate to the seriousness of the circum-
       stances of the offenses and the offender. But McBride’s total sen-
       tence of 480 months’ imprisonment was well below the guideline
       imprisonment range of 3,840 months’ imprisonment, and thus
       within the ballpark of permissible outcomes. See Butler, 39 F.4th at
       1355. The court provided an adequate explanation and properly
       considered and weighed the relevant § 3553(a) factors, including
       the nature and circumstances of McBride’s offenses, his history and
       characteristics, the need to promote respect for the law, the need
       for deterrence, and the need to avoid nationwide sentencing dis-
       parities. See § 3553(a); Butler, 39 F.4th at 1354–57; Gall, 552 U.S. at
USCA11 Case: 22-12030     Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 11/02/2023    Page: 7 of 7

       22-12030               Opinion of the Court                        7

       46–47, 50–51. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discre-
       tion by imposing McBride’s sentence.
              AFFIRMED.