[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10296 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JULY 13, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 3:08-cr-00223-MEF-SRW-1
USA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES EDWARD SHERUM,
a.k.a. charlie5895,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(July 13, 2010)
Before BLACK, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Sherum appeals his 15-month, low-end guidelines sentence
following his conviction for transferring obscene material to a minor, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1470. On appeal, Sherum argues that his sentence should be
vacated because it is unreasonable based on the evidence he offered in mitigation,
and was longer than necessary to achieve the statutory purposes of sentencing.
After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s
sentence.
We review a sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard. United States v. Sarras, 575 F.3d 1191, 1219 (11th Cir. 2009)
(citation omitted). The reasonableness inquiry is a two-step process. Id. (citation
omitted). The party challenging the sentence carries the burden of establishing
unreasonableness. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam).
First, we determine whether the district court “committed any significant
procedural error, such as miscalculating the advisory guidelines range, treating the
guidelines range as mandatory, or failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors.” Sarras, 575 F.3d at 1219 (citation omitted). Procedural errors can also
include selection of a sentence that is based on clearly erroneous facts, or failure to
adequately explain the chosen sentence. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179,
1190 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). The § 3553(a) factors need not be
2
discussed individually, as the district court just needs to have considered the
arguments and factors in § 3553(a). Talley, 431 F.3d at 786 (citation omitted).
Second, we review the sentence for substantive reasonableness in light of
the record and the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 845
(11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The sentencing court shall impose a sentence
sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).1
The weight given to any § 3553(a) factor is within the sound discretion of
the district court, and we do not substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant
factors. United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation
1
The relevant § 3553(a) factors include:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed—
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote
respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the
offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed . . . treatment . . .;
(3) the kinds of sentences available;
(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range . . . ;
(5) any pertinent policy statement . . .
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of
similar conduct; and
(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
3
omitted). “[W]e recognize that there is a range of reasonable sentences from
which the district court may choose . . . .” Talley, 431 F.3d at 788.
We ordinarily expect a sentence within the advisory guidelines range to be a
reasonable one. Id. We will only remand a sentence when the district court
commits “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.” Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1191 (quotation omitted).
With this background, we turn to Sherum’s challenges to the reasonableness
of his sentence. Because Sherum does not offer argument pertaining to the
procedural reasonableness of his sentence, he has abandoned any such argument.
See United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003) (stating
that a party abandons an issue if he does not raise it in his initial brief). Even if
such an argument was made however, Sherum’s sentence is procedurally
reasonable because the district court acknowledged that it considered the
§ 3553(a) factors, noted the guidelines were advisory and articulated its reasons
for imposing the sentence. Cf. United States v. Jennings, 599 F.3d 1241, 1255
(11th Cir. 2010) (finding that a sentence was procedurally reasonable where “the
court clearly articulated the section 3553 factors, noted the guidelines were
advisory and articulated its reasons for imposing the sentence”).
4
With respect to the substantive reasonableness of Sherum’s sentence, the
district court stated that a 15-month sentence was necessary to achieve two goals
of sentencing: (1) to guarantee that Sherum would have no online contact with
minors; and (2) to ensure that Sherum received medical treatment, which was the
court’s “first priority.” (Doc. 45 at 73–76). That the district court placed more
weight on these sentencing objectives than Sherum’s argument in mitigation, is
within its sound discretion, and we will not re-weigh the relevant factors on
appeal. See Amedeo, 487 F.3d at 832. Moreover, the district court sentenced
Sherum at the bottom end of the guidelines range (15 to 21 months), and well
below the statutory maximum of 10 years. 18 U.S.C. § 1470; see also Talley, 431
F.3d at 788 (finding a sentence at the low end of the guidelines range was
reasonable); United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (per
curiam), cert denied, 129 S. Ct. 2848 (2009) (concluding that a sentence was
reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum).
Furthermore, “[c]hild sex crimes are among the most egregious and
despicable of societal and criminal offenses, and courts have upheld lengthy
sentences in these cases as substantively reasonable.” Sarras, 575 F.3d at 1220;
Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1202 (“[W]e have typically treated child sex offenses as serious
crimes, upholding severe sentences in these cases.”). Here, the district court
5
imposed a sentence that reflects the nature and circumstances of the offense and
the other considerations stated in § 3553(a).
Thus, we conclude that the district court did not commit a “clear error in
judgment” by sentencing Sherum to 15 months’ imprisonment.
As a result, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
6