[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-10044 JULY 19, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 02-00056-CR-CB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARVIN JEAN LEWIS,
a.k.a. Joel Paul,
a.k.a. Jack,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(July 19, 2006)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Marvin Jean Lewis appeals as unreasonable his 210-month sentence
imposed after he pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).1 We conclude the 210-month
sentence is reasonable, and affirm.
We review the district court’s sentence for reasonableness. Such review is
deferential, requiring this Court to evaluate “whether the sentence imposed by the
district court fails to achieve the purposes of sentencing as stated in [18 U.S.C.]
section 3553(a).” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
Moreover, the reasonableness standard is applied to the ultimate sentence, not to
each individual decision made during the sentencing process. United States v.
Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1245 (11th Cir. 2005). “[T]he party who challenges the
sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the
light of both [the] record and the factors in section 3553(a).” Talley, 431 F.3d at
788.
Post-Booker, after the sentencing court accurately calculates the Guidelines
range, it can impose a more severe or more lenient sentence as long as the sentence
is reasonable. Winingear, 422 F.3d at 1244. In imposing its sentence, the
1
We previously remanded this case for resentencing because Lewis was sentenced to 262
months’ imprisonment under a mandatory Guidelines system, in violation of United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). United States v. Lewis, Case No. 04-16504 (11th Cir. Aug. 26, 2005)
(unpublished).
2
sentencing court considers the factors listed in § 3553(a). United States v. Scott,
426 F.3d 1324, 1328-1329 (11th Cir. 2005). These factors include: (1) the history
and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to
reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just
punishment for the offense; (3) the need for the sentence to afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct; and (4) the need for the sentence to protect the
public from further crimes of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). District courts
do not need to establish the reasonableness of the sentences they impose by
explicitly considering every factor from § 3553(a) on the record; some indication
in the record that the court adequately and properly considered appropriate factors
in conjunction with the sentence will be sufficient. Scott, 426 F.3d at 1329.
Here, the district court considered several specific § 3553(a) factors in
imposing Lewis's sentence, including the seriousness of the offense, just
punishment, adequate deterrence, the history and characteristics of Lewis, and the
need to provide the defendant with medical care for his mental illness.
Specifically, the court stated:
And it was clear to the court that you were suffering from
some–and obviously, these reports all showed you had some
psychological problems. . . .
But I am impressed with the fact that you’re getting help for
that now. It’s obvious here today that you’ve indicated some degree
3
of recovery, if you will, for lack of a better word, from whatever it
was that was driving your odd behavior before. . . .
Well, I’m going to agree with your lawyer in some respects.
Not completely, but in some respects. That because of the relative
youth at which you committed the first two of your offenses that
go–well, two that go to the career offender and the fact that there is
very strong evidence that you had deep psychological problems that
had never been addressed before and are currently being addressed,
that the likelihood of you being a recidivist and coming back before
any court after you serve this sentence is substantially lower than what
it would have been.
And all your subsequent criminal behavior that Ms. Griffin
pointed out occurred after you were released from your assault on a
police officer charge was in part contributed by the psychological
problems that you were suffering. And I can truly say that it
impresses the Court that you’re in a situation now, as I see you here
today, where it’s obvious that’s being taken care of.
However, you did commit a serious crime here in this District
some years ago, as we’re now here for sentencing well after the fact,
and the Court is going to find that the advisory guidelines do not
reflect a sentence that meets all of the sentencing factors of either
punishment, deterrence, incapacitation or those factors set forth in
Title 18 3553. But that a more appropriate sentence would be one that
takes into account those positive factors that I just mentioned. As
well as the fact that, and I’m not sure this was pointed out at your
original sentencing, but often in the past when a defendant appears
before me who has spent time in the Metro Jail I have, where possible,
even under the mandatory guidelines, not given credit for that time,
but let defendants have some benefit of the fact that they’ve been in an
institutional setting where they’re getting no training, no education, no
help to speak of. So you did spend a couple of years there.
So under all of these factors and reasoning by the Court I find
that an appropriate sentence is two hundred and ten months custody in
the Bureau of Prisons, which is what I impose today . . . .
4
The district judge accurately calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range,2
adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors, and ultimately sentenced Lewis to a
sentence below the Guidelines range. We conclude Lewis’s sentence is reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
2
In the prior opinion, we noted the district court had correctly calculated the Guidelines
range of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. United States v. Lewis, Case No. 04-16504 (11th Cir.
Aug. 26, 2005) (unpublished).
5