Case: 12-13056 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13056
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cr-00045-RH-CAS-7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TERESA SHALONDA ALBRITTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(July 31, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-13056 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Teresa Shalonda Albritton pled guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud in
connection with counterfeit credit cards or other access devices, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 371, 1029(a)(1), (b)(2), and (c), and a substantive fraud offense, 18
U.S.C. 1029(a)(1) and (c). The District Court sentenced her to concurrent prison
terms of 87 months, at the low end of the Guidelines sentence range. She now
appeals her sentences, contending that they are unreasonable because the District
Court erred procedurally by failing to adequately explain her sentences and discuss
the purposes of sentencing set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). She also contends that
her sentences are unreasonable substantively because the record did not provide the
court with sufficient facts to properly compute the Guidelines sentence range. We
affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of
discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591,
169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We first consider whether the District Court committed a
procedural error, such as failing to calculate, or improperly calculating, the
Guidelines sentence range, failing to consider the § 3553(a) sentencing purposes,
selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately
explain the sentences imposed. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. at 597. Regarding
the § 3553(a) purposes, we note that the court was not required to recite a laundry
list of those purposes. United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255, 1278 (11th Cir.
2
Case: 12-13056 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 3 of 4
2008). Rather, the court’s explicit acknowledgment that it considered the
defendant’s arguments and the § 3553(a) purposes is sufficient to demonstrate that
it adequately and properly considered such purposes. Id.
In imposing a sentence, the court must state in open court the reasons for the
sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c); see United States v. Livesay, 525 F.3d 1081, 1090
(11th Cir. 2008). The court should set forth enough to satisfy this court on
appellate review that it considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis
for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority. Id. The court was not
required to “incant the specific language used in the guidelines” or “articulate its
consideration of each individual § 3553(a) factor,” so long as the record reflects
that the court considered such factors. United States v. Bonilla, 463 F.3d 1176,
1182 (11th Cir. 2006).
After we determine that a sentence is procedurally sound, we consider
whether it is substantively reasonable by examining the totality of the
circumstances before the court at sentencing and whether the § 3553(a) purposes
support the sentence imposed. United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1323-24
(11th Cir. 2008). The sentence must be sufficient, but not greater than necessary,
to comply with those purposes, including the need to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, deter
criminal conduct, and protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal
3
Case: 12-13056 Date Filed: 07/31/2013 Page: 4 of 4
conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Also to be considered are the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the
kinds of sentences available, the applicable guideline range, the pertinent policy
statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id.
§ 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
Having reviewed the record before the District Court at sentencing, we find
no basis for holding Albritton’s sentences procedurally unreasonable. First, the
court specifically stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) purposes; that is
sufficient to demonstrate that the court adequately and properly considered them.
See Ellisor, 522 F.3d at 1278. Second, the court stated on the record the reasons
for the sentences and explained that they were appropriate in light of the
Guidelines sentence range, Albritton’s participation in the criminal scheme, her
codefendant’s sentence, and her failure fully to accept responsibility for her
actions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7). Moreover, the court acknowledged
Albritton’s role as a mother and stated that her status as a parent did not warrant
lesser sentences. In sum, the court appropriately considered the § 3553(a)
purposes of sentencing and the reasons for Albritton’s sentences.
AFFIRMED.
4