[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 23, 2007
No. 06-14788 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-80048-CR-DMM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TYRONE ANTHONY JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(October 23, 2007)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Anthony Johnson appeals the seventy month prison sentence
imposed on him by the district court after he pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm
as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends that his
sentence, which was the lowest in the guideline range, was both procedurally and
substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to properly consider
specific mitigating circumstances. Johnson also argues that the increase in his base
offense level due to a previous robbery conviction yielded a sentence that was too
harsh given his minimal participation in that robbery. Finally, Johnson asserts that
his youth, regret, and desire to support his infant son make the district court’s
refusal to award him a downward variance unreasonable.
We review the final sentence imposed by the district court for
reasonableness. United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1245 (11th Cir. 2005).
Our review for reasonableness is deferential. United States v. Thomas, 446 F.3d
1348, 1351 (11th Cir. 2006).
Unreasonableness may be procedural, such as occurs when the procedure the
district court used does not meet the requirements found in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), or it may be substantive in nature.
See United States v. Hunt, 459 F.3d 1180, 1182 n.3 (11th Cir. 2006). After
Booker, a district court, in determining a reasonable sentence, must consider the
correctly calculated advisory guideline range and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
2
§ 3553(a). United States v. Valnor, 451 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2006). After
correctly calculating the advisory guideline range, the district court may impose a
more severe or lenient sentence, so long as the resulting sentence is reasonable. Id.
at 750. “[T]here is a range of reasonable sentences from which the district court
may choose[,]” and the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in
light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors lies with the party challenging the
sentence. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005).
Here, Johnson’s sentence was procedurally reasonable because the district
court correctly calculated the guideline range and indicated that it had considered
the factors set forth in § 3553(a). The seventy-month sentence was also
substantively reasonable. We note that the sentence imposed was at the very
bottom of the advisory range, and “ordinarily we would expect a sentence within
the Guidelines range to be reasonable.” Talley, 431 F.3d at 788. Additionally,
given the frequency of Johnson’s past criminal conduct and his apparent disregard
for the rule of law, the district court’s determination that a sentence within the
guideline range was necessary to protect the public represents a thoughtful
weighing of the statutory factors. Therefore, Johnson has not met his burden to
show his sentence at the lowest point in the guideline range is unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
3