[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
May 29, 2008
No. 07-14020 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00267-CR-CG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DONALD LEE CARLTON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(May 29, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Lee Carlton, Jr., appeals the district court’s imposition of a high-end
guideline-range sentence as substantively unreasonable. On appeal, Carlton argues
that the district court gave no weight to his arguments that he is different from the
typical criminal history category VI offender, level VI over-represented his
criminal history, and the government unreasonably waited over two years before
prosecuting him. Therefore, he argues he would be better classified as a level V
offender and should have received a smaller sentence.
We review a final sentence imposed by a district court for reasonableness.
United States v. Agbai, 497 F.3d 1226, 1229 (11th Cir. 2007). The reasonableness
of a final sentence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v.
United States, __U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Specifically, the district court must impose a sentence that is both procedurally and
substantively reasonable. United States v. Hunt, 459 F.3d 1180, 1182 n.3 (11th
Cir. 2006).
The Supreme Court has explained that a sentence may be procedurally
unreasonable if the district court improperly calculates the guideline imprisonment
range, treats the Guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the appropriate
statutory factors, bases the sentence on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to
adequately explain its reasoning. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. It has suggested that
review for substantive reasonableness under this standard involves an inquiry into
2
whether the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support the sentence in question. Id. at
600. We do not presume reasonable a sentence within the properly calculated
Guidelines range. United States v. Campbell, 491 F.3d 1306, 1313 (11th Cir.
2007). Nonetheless, “when the district court imposes a sentence within the
advisory Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable
one.” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). We have
recognized that “there 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. Id.
When reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, we must consider the
factors outlined in § 3553(a) and the district court’s reasons for imposing the
particular sentence. United States v. Williams, 435 F.3d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir.
2006). The § 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the
offense and the 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; (4) the need to protect the
public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational
training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the Sentencing
3
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 the victims. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(7).
While the district court must consider the § 3553(a) factors in imposing the
sentence, it is not required to discuss each factor. Talley, 431 F.3d at 786. Rather,
“an acknowledgment by the district court that it has considered the defendant’s
arguments and the factors in section 3553(a) is sufficient under Booker.” Id.
Where the court imposes a within-guidelines sentence, the district court need only
“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 decisionmaking
authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168
L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Further, “[t]he weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a)
factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” United
States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted).
Here, the district court imposed a procedurally reasonable sentence because
it correctly calculated the guideline range, it considered the statutory factors, and it
noted that it had considered the arguments of the parties. It also sufficiently
explained its reasoning, noting that several of Carlton’s offenses involved violence
and that he began committing crimes at a young age.
4
The court also imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. It cited
Carlton’s criminal history as the major reason it felt a high-end guideline range
sentence was appropriate, and the weight the court attributed to Carlton’s criminal
history was at its discretion. Because the district court considered the appropriate
factors and appropriately exercised its discretion, it imposed a reasonable sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
5