Case: 16-12215 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-12215
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:02-cr-80007-KLR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TORRANCE L. WILKINS,
a.k.a. Rooster,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 29, 2016)
Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-12215 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 2 of 4
Torrance Wilkins appeals the district court’s imposition of a 21-month
sentence, imposed at the low end of the Guidelines range, following revocation of
his supervised release. Wilkins asserts the court’s sentence was unreasonably
harsh. He contends the court focused solely on his prior criminal history, and did
not consider his improved performance on supervision. After review,1 we affirm
Wilkins’ sentence as reasonable.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), a district court may, upon finding by a
preponderance of the evidence that a defendant has violated a condition of
supervised release, revoke the term of supervised release and impose a term of
imprisonment after considering certain factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Section 3553(a) provides that district courts imposing a
sentence must first consider, inter alia, (1) the nature and circumstances of the
offense; (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant; (3) the need for the
sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and
provide just punishment for the offense; and (4) the kinds of sentences and
sentencing range established by the Guidelines, and in the case of a violation of
supervised release, the applicable Guidelines or policy statements issued by the
1
We review the sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release for
reasonableness. United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir. 2006). We vacate
a sentence only if left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a
clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by imposing a sentence that lies outside
the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case. United States v. Irey, 612
F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
2
Case: 16-12215 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 3 of 4
Sentencing Commission. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The weight to be given any
particular factor under § 3553(a) is left to the sound discretion of the district court,
absent a clear error of judgment. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th
Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Wilkins’ Guidelines range was 21 to 24 months’ imprisonment, and the
court was not unreasonable in imposing a 21-month sentence. See United States v.
Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining while we do not
automatically presume a within-Guidelines sentence to be reasonable, we
ordinarily expect such a result). While the district court did not explicitly refer to
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) while articulating its reasoning for its choice of sentence, the
record shows the court considered several of the sentencing factors under the
statute, specifically, the need to promote respect for the law and the history and
characteristics of the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court was
concerned with Wilkins’ prior criminal history which included 168 arrests. The
record showed that while on release he returned to committing the same types of
crimes that he had been committing before serving his prison sentence in the
present case. Wilkins’ underlying conviction was for distribution of cocaine, and
he was convicted while on supervised release of possession of cocaine. Wilkins’
21-month sentence, imposed at the low end of the Guidelines range was
3
Case: 16-12215 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 4 of 4
substantively reasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4