[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JAN 08 2008
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 07-11238
CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00057-CR-RDP-JEO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN STELLIOS DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(January 8, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant pled guilty to knowingly transporting and shipping in interstate
commerce, by computer, child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252A(a)(1), and was sentenced at the low end of the Guidelines sentence range
to prison for a term of 235 months.1 He appeals his sentence, contending that (1)
the district court enhanced his sentence range based on evidence established by a
preponderance of the evidence, in derogation of the rule established by United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and (2)
the district court failed properly to consider the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) in arriving at his sentence.
We reject appellant’s first contention because the court, in treating the
Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory, did not commit Booker error. We
turn then to appellant’s second point, that the court failed properly to consider the
§ 3553(a) factors in fashioning the sentence.
Section 3553(a) lists several factors a court must consider in determining a
reasonable sentence: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
1
The sentence range the Guidelines prescribed called for a term of imprisonment of 235
to 293 months. The maximum sentence prescribed by statute was 20 years. Because the
Guidelines sentence range of 235 to 293 months exceeded that maximum, the high end of the
range became 240 months.
2
history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness
of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for
the offense; (3) the need for deterrence to criminal conduct; (4) the need to protect
the public from further crimes by the defendant; (5) the need to provide the
defendant with needed educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the
kinds of sentences available; (7) the Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy
statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwanted
sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to victims. 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The weight the court gives to a particular § 3553(a) factor is a matter
committed to the court’s sound discretion. Here, the record establishes that
district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and then concluded that the sentence
it imposed was appropriate to satisfy the purposes of sentencing. We find no basis
in the record for disturbing appellant’s sentence. It is accordingly
AFFIRMED.
3