Case: 13-12363 Date Filed: 12/11/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12363
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-00041-MP-GRJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAYMOND ELIJAH WORTHAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(December 11, 2013)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Wortham appeals his sentence that was imposed after a guilty plea
for attempted use of interstate commerce to induce a minor to engage in sexual
activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). On appeal, Wortham argues that the
Case: 13-12363 Date Filed: 12/11/2013 Page: 2 of 3
district court did not address or explain, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1), its
rejection of Wortham’s mitigation argument or its reasons for imposing the
sentence that it did. After thorough review, we affirm.
We review de novo the sufficiency of the district court’s explanation under
18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1), even if the defendant did not object below. United States
v. Bonilla, 463 F.3d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court is required to
state reasons for its particular sentence, and if the sentence is of a kind and within
the range recommended by the Guidelines and that range exceeds 24 months, the
reason for imposing a sentence at a particular point within that range. 18 U.S.C. §
3553(c)(1); Bonilla, 463 F.3d at 1181. Section 3553(c)(1) applies to the district
court’s statements “at the time of sentencing” and “in open court.” 18 U.S.C. §
3553(c).
A district court is 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 the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors.
Bonilla, 463 F.3d at 1182. More generally, the district court should set forth
enough to satisfy the appellate court that the court has considered the parties’
arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decision-making
authority. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). The appropriateness of
the brevity or length of a district court’s reasons for accepting or rejecting an
2
Case: 13-12363 Date Filed: 12/11/2013 Page: 3 of 3
argument depends upon the circumstances, leaving much to the court’s judgment.
Id. “Where the defendant or prosecutor presents nonfrivolous reasons for
imposing a different sentence, however, the judge will normally go further and
explain why he has rejected those arguments. Sometimes the circumstances will
call for a brief explanation; sometimes they will call for a lengthier explanation.”
Id. at 357.
Here, even though the district court’s explanation for Wortham’s sentence
was terse, the district court said that it had read the letters submitted prior to the
sentencing hearing on Wortham’s behalf. After the district court heard substantial
argument from both parties about the appropriate sentence and Wortham’s
allocution, the district court determined that the mid-range guideline sentence was
sufficient for punishment and for deterrence. The court also concluded that the PSI
was accurate. The district court further provided that it had considered the §
3553(a) factors in imposing sentence. On this record, Wortham has failed to show
that the district court violated § 3553(c)(1) or committed any other significant
procedural error.
AFFIRMED.
3