[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
U.S.
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APR 8, 2011
No. 10-11807 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cr-60076-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllll llllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN A. GULLETT,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 8, 2011)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John A. Gullett appeals his 51-month sentence, imposed above his guideline
range of 27 to 33 months, after a jury convicted him of four counts of subscribing
to a false U.S. individual income tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).
Although it is disputed whether Gullet preserved his reasonableness
challenge, we find his sentence to be both procedurally and substantively
reasonable under either a plain-error or an abuse-of-discretion standard of review,
for the following reasons. Gullett’s 51-month sentence was procedurally
reasonable. The district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Moreover, despite Gullett’s contentions, the district court adequately explained at
sentencing why a sentence within the guidelines range would not satisfy the §
3553(a) factors. Likewise, the district court’s explanation of its reasons for
varying upward was sufficiently justified to support the degree of the variance.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007) (explaining that when a district
court varies from the applicable guidelines range, the justification must be
“sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance”).
Gullett’s 51-month sentence was also substantively reasonable. The district
court did not err when weighing the § 3553(a) factors because it did not give
undue weight to any particular factor and focused on the relevant factors in
imposing its sentence. The record shows that the district court correctly calculated
the guideline range, considered the§ 3553(a) factors, and heard Gullet’s arguments
in mitigation. The district court neither abused its discretion nor committed plain
2
error in concluding that an upward variance sentence was necessary to comply
with the purposes of § 3553(a)—Gullett’s sentence was appropriate to promote
respect for the law, provide just punishment, provide adequate deterrence, and
protect the public from further crimes. See § 3553(a)(2)(A)–(C).
Gullett has failed to carry his burden of showing that his sentence was
unreasonable. See United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3