[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
September 6, 2007
No. 06-14542 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-80092-CR-DTKH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANK STALLINGS,
a.k.a. Cadillac,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(September 6, 2007)
Before DUBINA, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Frank Stallings appeals his sentences imposed pursuant to his guilty pleas
for conspiracy to possess and possession of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 846 and 841(a)(1) as being unreasonable. Stallings argues that his below-
Guidelines sentence was unreasonable because he received a “patently excessive
and unfair” career offender enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a), which
was based on “stale and remote” predicate offenses and produced an unreasonable
sentencing disparity between Stallings and his more culpable codefendants.
We apply the deferential standard of reasonableness to the final sentence, in
light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Martin, 455
F.3d 1227, 1237 (11th Cir. 2006). However, the district court need not explicitly
state on the record that it has considered each factor and need not discuss each
factor. Id. An acknowledgment by the district court that it has considered the
defendant’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors will suffice. Id.; see also Rita v.
United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007) (noting that the “sentencing judge
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 decision
making authority”). In determining if the district court has adequately considered
the defendant’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors, we look to the district court’s
statements over the entire sentencing hearing. See United States v. Williams, 435
2
F.3d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 2006). The burden of proving that the sentence is
unreasonable in light of the record and these factors rests on the challenger. United
States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
In this case, the district court considered Stallings’ arguments at sentencing,
stated that it had considered each of the § 3553(a) factors, and imposed sentences
below both the statutory maximum and the advisory Guidelines range. Stallings’
suggestion that the sentencing disparity between him and his co-defendants renders
the district court’s sentence unreasonable is insufficient to show unreasonableness
because Stallings had a different criminal history than his co-defendants. The
differences between his and his co-defendants’ criminal histories accounted for
their different sentences as contemplated by both the purposes of sentencing
embodied in the § 3553(a) factors and the Guidelines calculation itself. Thus,
Stallings has failed to meet his burden of establishing that his sentences are
unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm both of Stallings’ sentences.
AFFIRMED.
3