[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JAN 18, 2011
No. 10-12128 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00331-VMC-AEP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WARREN HARDER,
a.k.a. Warren J. Harder,
llllllllllllllDefendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 18, 2011)
Before HULL, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Warren Harder appeals his 240-month sentence for attempting to produce
child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). Harder argues on
appeal that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court
focused on the need to punish him and protect the public to the exclusion of the
other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. He also contends that his sentence was
substantively unreasonable because the sentence imposed was longer than
necessary and would result in a life sentence because of his advanced age and poor
health. Harder also argues that the 15-year statutory minimum sentence is cruel
and unusual punishment.
I.
An appellate court reviews a final sentence for reasonableness, applying the
abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct.
586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Whether a sentence is reasonable is guided by
the factors set forth by Congress in § 3553(a). United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d
1179, 1188-89 (11th Cir. 2008). Although we do not presume reasonable a
sentence that is within the guidelines range, United States v. Campbell, 491 F.3d
1306, 1313 (11th Cir. 2007), we have held that the use of the Guidelines remains
central to the sentencing process, United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 787 (11th
Cir. 2005). Accordingly, “when the district court imposes a sentence within the
2
advisory Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable
one.” Talley, 431 F.3d at 788. The burden of establishing that the sentence is
unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors lies with the party
challenging the sentence. Id.
In reviewing a sentencing decision, we must ensure both procedural and
substantive reasonableness. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct at 597. Factors that we
must consider in determining procedural reasonableness are whether the district
court properly calculated the Guidelines range, improperly treated the Guidelines
as mandatory, failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selected a sentence based
on clearly erroneous facts, or failed to adequately explain its chosen sentence. Id.
After determining the sentence is procedurally reasonable, we must consider
whether the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light of the § 3553(a)
factors. Id. These factors are:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness
of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense; (3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need to
protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed
educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of
sentences available; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent
policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid
unwanted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution
to victims.
3
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A sentence is substantively reasonable if, under the totality of
the circumstances, it achieves the purposes of § 3553(a). Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1191.
We “will defer to the district court’s judgment regarding the weight given to the
§ 3553(a) factors” unless it concludes that the district court “made a clear error of
judgment” and “imposed a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable
sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d
1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted).
Based on the record, Harder has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating
that his sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable because the
district court followed the proper procedures in determining his sentence and
applied the § 3553(a) factors to determine a sentence not greater than necessary to
achieve the goals of sentencing. The record does not support Harder’s contention
that the court inappropriately focused on the single § 3553(a) factor of punishment
at the expense of the factors that he presented in mitigation. In explaining the
basis for its sentencing determination, the district court emphasized Harder’s past
predatory behavior and offense, which accounted for his history and personal
characteristics, as well as the need to protect the public, in this case vulnerable
young girls, from further crimes committed by him. The court also stated that
instead of imposing a high-end guidelines sentence, as it was inclined to do, the
4
court imposed a lower sentence after considering the letters of support, Harder’s
age, and the sincerity of his apology, which also accounted for his history and
personal characteristics. The court also acknowledged the need to impose just
punishment. Though the district court explicitly noted these reasons for imposing
the sentence, it was not required to specifically discuss each § 3553(a) factor,
provided that the record is clear that the court considered all of the factors. See
Talley, 431 F.3d at 786. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by
sentencing Harder to a total of 240 months’ imprisonment, we affirm his sentence.
II.
We review the legality of a sentence under the Eighth Amendment de novo.
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2005). However, if an
Eighth Amendment challenge to the sentence is not raised in the district court, we
will review for plain error only. United States v. Johnson, 451 F.3d 1239, 1242
(11th Cir. 2006). The Eighth Amendment provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not
be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.” U.S. Const. amend. VIII. We accord substantial deference to Congress,
because “it possesses broad authority to determine the types and limits of
punishments for crimes.” Johnson, 451 F.3d at 1242-43.
5
In evaluating an Eighth Amendment challenge in a non-capital case, we
must first make the threshold determination that “the sentence imposed is grossly
disproportionate to the offense committed.” Id. at 1243-44 (holding that, as the
defendant was sentenced within the statutory limits, he had not made a threshold
showing of a disproportionality). Thus, in general, “a sentence within the limits
imposed by statute is neither excessive nor cruel and unusual under the Eighth
Amendment.” Id. at 1243.
Harder cannot argue that the 15-year statutory minimum is cruel and
unusual punishment because the statutory minimum sentence was not applied to
him. Rather, Harder was sentenced to a 240-month guidelines sentence, which he
does not challenge as cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, even if
Harder’s 240-month sentence was unreasonable, and he were resentenced, he has
failed to demonstrate that the 15-year minimum sentence, within the statutory
limits, would be disproportionate. See Johnson, 451 F.3d 1243-44.
AFFIRMED.
6