Case: 12-16341 Date Filed: 10/16/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-16341
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cr-60073-WJZ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EVANS JOSEPH,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 16, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Evans Joseph appeals his 198-month sentence imposed after pleading guilty
to possession with intent to distribute crack and powder cocaine, in violation of 21
Case: 12-16341 Date Filed: 10/16/2013 Page: 2 of 4
U.S.C. § 841(a); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and in
furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(c). He asserts his sentence is both procedurally and substantively
unreasonable. After thorough review, we affirm.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). The party challenging the sentence bears
the burden of demonstrating its unreasonableness. United States v. Bane, 720 F.3d
818, 824 (11th Cir. 2013).
Joseph argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the
district court did not consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) or explain its sentence. We disagree. The district court stated that it had
“considered all of the statutory factors” and that its sentence “reflects the
seriousness of the offense,” “promotes respect for the law,” “deters future criminal
conduct,” and “protects the public from future crimes.” See 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(2)(A)-(C); see also United States v. Flores, 572 F.3d 1254, 1271 (11th Cir.
2009) (noting that the district court need not discuss every statutory factor). And
the district court explained that Joseph’s 198-month sentence, a 64-month
downward variance from the bottom of his advisory guidelines range, was
warranted because Joseph “ha[d] drugs in a room full of children and he ha[d] a
weapon.” As we explained in Flores, “[a] lengthy discussion is not required in the
2
Case: 12-16341 Date Filed: 10/16/2013 Page: 3 of 4
typical case, so long as the district court sets forth enough to satisfy the appellate
court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for
exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Id. at 1270-71 (alteration and
internal quotation marks omitted). The district court’s discussion of Joseph’s
culpability and the § 3553(a) factors was sufficient in this case. Accordingly,
Joseph has not demonstrated his sentence is procedurally unreasonable.
Joseph likewise cannot show that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
He asserts that his sentence is unreasonable because his case involved a small
amount of drugs, the firearm he possessed was unloaded, and his advisory
guidelines range overrepresented his conduct. But the district court concluded that,
although these arguments supported a downward variance, Joseph’s extensive
criminal history, possession of a firearm, and criminal conduct in the presence of
children required a 198-month sentence. We cannot say that conclusion was an
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir.
2007) (“The weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter
committed to the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not substitute
our judgment in weighing the relevant factors.” (alterations and internal quotation
marks omitted)); see also United States v. Bohannon, 476 F.3d 1246, 1254 (11th
Cir. 2007) (noting that the fact that a sentence is well below the statutory
maximum supports a finding that it is reasonable).
3
Case: 12-16341 Date Filed: 10/16/2013 Page: 4 of 4
AFFIRMED.
4