Case: 17-14569 Date Filed: 05/23/2018 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-14569
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cr-00007-RWS-JCF-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAJUANIS ARMSTRONG,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(May 23, 2018)
Before JULIE CARNES, HULL, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 17-14569 Date Filed: 05/23/2018 Page: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Jajuanis Armstrong appeals his 96-month sentence for stealing firearms, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(u), 924(i), and 2. He contends that the sentence is
procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court did not
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or adequately explain its reason for
imposing an upward variance. We see no reversible error.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence, even when it is outside of the
guideline range, under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A sentence may be procedurally unreasonable if
the sentencing court fails to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id. We
however do not require a district court to state on the record that it has explicitly
considered each of the § 3553(a) factors; we will consider it sufficient where the
district court acknowledges that it considered the defendant’s arguments and the
§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936, 938 (11th Cir. 2007).
In sentencing a defendant, the district court “should set forth enough to satisfy the
appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned
basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). The district court must explain its decision to
impose a variance from the Guidelines, providing a justification that is
2
Case: 17-14569 Date Filed: 05/23/2018 Page: 3 of 5
“sufficiently compelling to support the degree of variance.” United States v. Irey,
612 F.3d 1160, 1196 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted).
After reviewing for procedural reasonableness, we consider the substantive
reasonableness of a sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In reviewing a district court’s
sentence for substantive reasonableness, we examine the totality of the
circumstances to determine whether the statutory factors in § 3553(a) support the
sentence in question. United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir.
2008). A sentence may be substantively unreasonable if a district court
unjustifiably relied on a § 3553(a) factor or failed altogether to consider pertinent
§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Sarras, 575 F.3d 1191, 1219 (11th Cir. 2009).
The district court’s sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to comply with the purposes” listed in § 3553(a)(2), including the need
for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense and to promote respect for
the law, the need for adequate deterrence, the need to protect the public, and the
need to provide the defendant with educational or vocational training, medical
care, or other correctional treatment. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The district court
should also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense and history and
characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the guideline
range, pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid
3
Case: 17-14569 Date Filed: 05/23/2018 Page: 4 of 5
unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims.
Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7).
The party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of showing that the
sentence is unreasonable in the light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors.
United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). The weight given to
any 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). We will not remand for resentencing unless
left with a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear
error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by imposing a sentence outside
of the range of reasonable sentences based upon the facts of the case. United
States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th Cir. 2016). That we may reasonably
conclude a different sentence is appropriate is insufficient for reversal. Gall, 552
U.S. at 51.
Armstrong’s sentence is procedurally reasonable. The district court was not
required to analyze the sequence in which he received his state and federal
sentences, but rather, the § 3553(a) factors, which the court considered and
addressed. The district court also explained its decision to vary upwards, based on
4
Case: 17-14569 Date Filed: 05/23/2018 Page: 5 of 5
the need to punish Armstrong appropriately, given the seriousness of his offense
and history, while also allowing him access to rehabilitative programs. See Irey,
612 F.3d at 1196.
Armstrong’s sentence is substantively reasonable because the § 3553(a)
factors support his sentence. See Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324. Though Armstrong
argues that his sentence is unreasonable given his personal characteristics and
asserted sentencing disparity, these things are both issues that the district court
specifically considered. The district court was entitled to afford great weight to
Armstrong’s history and characteristics. Regardless of the timing of his state and
federal cases, Armstrong does not dispute the violent nature of those offenses. See
Clay, 483 F.3d at 743. The district court used its discretion in weighing the
§ 3553(a) factors, and the sentence is not outside the range of reasonable sentences
given the facts of the case. See Croteau, 819 F.3d at 1309.
AFFIRMED.
5