Case: 16-16699 Date Filed: 06/22/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16699
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00259-TCB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ADRIAN TRONE,
a.k.a. Dre,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 22, 2017)
Before HULL, MARCUS and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 16-16699 Date Filed: 06/22/2017 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Adrian Trone appeals his 18-month sentence, imposed upon revocation of
supervised release: 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Trone argues that the district court
imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
We review a district court’s revocation of supervised release for an abuse of
discretion and review the sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised
release for reasonableness. United States v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248,
1252 (11th Cir. 2008). The party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of
establishing that the sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Sarras, 575 F.3d
1191, 1219 (11th Cir. 2009).
We consider substantive reasonableness by taking into account the totality of
the circumstances. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). To revoke a
term of supervised release -- and require the defendant to serve time in prison -- the
district court must consider factors outlined in “section[s] 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B),
(a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6) and (a)(7).” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). These
factors include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and
characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence imposed to deter criminal
conduct, the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and
the applicable guideline range. Id. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D). The district court
2
Case: 16-16699 Date Filed: 06/22/2017 Page: 3 of 4
must impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to
comply with the purposes” listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Id. § 3553(a).
We ordinarily expect that a sentence within the guideline range is
reasonable. Sarras, 575 F.3d at 1219. A sentence may be substantively
unreasonable if a district court unjustifiably relied on one § 3553(a) factor, failed
to consider pertinent § 3553(a) factors, selected the sentence arbitrarily, or based
the sentence on impermissible factors. Id. The weight given to a specific
§ 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. United
States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007). As such, the district court need
not specifically address every mitigating factor raised by the defendant for the
sentence to be substantively reasonable. United States v. Snipes, 611 F.3d 855,
873 (11th Cir. 2010).
In this case, the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable
sentence: (1) it did not unjustifiably rely on the need to deter criminal behavior,
when Trone violated his supervised release for a second time after receiving 10
months’ imprisonment (conduct demonstrating his likelihood of recidivism); (2) it
did not fail to consider pertinent § 3553(a) factors, when it specifically
acknowledged Trone’s time served and heard Trone’s argument on limited
punishment for marijuana offenses; and (3) it did not base the sentence on
3
Case: 16-16699 Date Filed: 06/22/2017 Page: 4 of 4
impermissible factors, when the court was permitted to rely on the need to deter
crime.
AFFIRMED.
4