Case: 18-13134 Date Filed: 02/11/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-13134
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:17-cr-60095-JIC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SABONIS WRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 11, 2019)
Before WILSON, NEWSOM and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-13134 Date Filed: 02/11/2019 Page: 2 of 4
Sabonis Wright appeals a 15-month sentence imposed following his
conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after removal, in violation of
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Wright argues that the district court failed to adequately
consider mitigating factors that justified a downward variance, leading the district
court to render a longer sentence than required to achieve the purposes detailed in
18 U.S.C § 3553(a).
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Our analysis
proceeds in two steps. We must first ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural errors. Id. at 51. If the decision is procedurally sound, we
then examine whether the sentence is substantively reasonable considering the
totality of the circumstances. Id. The party challenging the sentence bears the
burden to show that the sentence was unreasonable in light of the record and the
factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th
Cir. 2010); United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1323–24 (11th Cir. 2008).
A party can demonstrate an abuse of discretion in sentencing by showing
that the district court “(1) fail[ed] to afford consideration to relevant factors that
were due significant weight, (2) g[ave] significant weight to an improper or
irrelevant factor, or (3) commit[ted] a clear error of judgment in considering the
proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010)
2
Case: 18-13134 Date Filed: 02/11/2019 Page: 3 of 4
(quoting United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc)).
Yet we do not reach such conclusions lightly. We will vacate a sentence only if we
are “left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a
clear error of judgment . . . by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of
reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Osorio-
Moreno, 814 F.3d 1282, 1287 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Pugh, 515
F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008)).
Finally, although we do not presume that a sentence within the Guidelines
range is reasonable, “ordinarily we would expect a sentence within the Guidelines
range to be reasonable.” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.
2005). That a sentence is well below the statutory maximum penalty is another
indicator of its reasonableness. See Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324.
We find no indications of procedural error or substantive unreasonableness
here. With regard to procedural error, Wright did not and has not challenged the
calculation of his recommended sentencing range of 15–21 months. As for
substantive unreasonableness, the considerations that Wright cites to support his
claim that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to reduce his sentence
below the statutory minimum—that an immigration lawyer had informed Wright
that he could lawfully enter the United States five years after his deportation, that
Wright has familial and social ties with the United States, and that Wright suffers
3
Case: 18-13134 Date Filed: 02/11/2019 Page: 4 of 4
from mental illness—do not leave us “with the definite and firm conviction that the
district court committed a clear error of judgment.” Osorio-Moreno, 814 F.3d at
1287. Moreover, Wright’s 15-month sentence was the minimum within his
Guideline range and well below the statutory maximum of 20 years of
imprisonment. See Gonzales, 550 F.3d at 1324.
Viewing the circumstances in their totality, we find no evidence that the
district court committed a clear error of judgment, imposed a sentence outside a
reasonable range, or failed to comply with § 3553(a)’s instruction to impose a
sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply” with its purposes.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4