[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 21, 2008
No. 07-10734
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-20916-CR-UUB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KAREEM ROBERTS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 21, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kareem Roberts appeals his 108-month sentence, which was imposed after
he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture and
substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 846. The 108-month term was at the lowest end of the Guidelines
range Roberts faced. On appeal, Roberts contends that the sentence was
unreasonable because: (1) the district court failed to consider any of the factors of
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in imposing sentence; (2) the court improperly applied a
presumption of reasonableness to the advisory guidelines; and (3) the facts of his
case supported a downward variance sentence. After careful review, we affirm.
After United States v. Booker, 1125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), we review sentences
for reasonableness, United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 785 (11th Cir. 2005),
which the Supreme Court has clarified is synonymous with the abuse-of-discretion
standard, Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 587, 596 (2007). Our appellate review
for reasonableness consists of two steps. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179,
1190 (11th Cir. 2008). First, we must we must “‘ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory,
failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence -- including an
explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.’” Id. (quoting Gall, 128
S. Ct. at 597). If we conclude that the district court made no procedural errors, we
must consider the “‘substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, under an
2
abuse-of-discretion standard,’” taking into account the “‘totality of the
circumstances.’” Id. (quoting Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597). In reviewing for substantive
reasonableness, we consider the sentence, in its entirety, in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, which 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 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.
United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 785-86 (11th Cir. 2005). “The weight to be
accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion
of the district court.” United States v. Williams, 456 F.3d 1353, 1363 (11th Cir.
2006), abrogated on other grounds by Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558
(2007).
Here, Roberts’s sentence was procedurally sound. The record demonstrates
that the district court allowed Roberts to present arguments as to a reasonable
sentence, including why he believed that a downward variance was appropriate.
The court also noted that the amended PSI “contain[ed] the advisory guidelines,”
which was an implicit recognition of the effect of Booker on the once mandatory
3
Guidelines. Moreover, the court reasoned that “a sentence at the low end of the
sentencing guideline range . . . [was] the most reasonable sentence” in light of “all
the factors contained in the statute [§ 3553(a)].”
Turning to the substantive reasonableness of Roberts’s sentence, the record
shows that the district court imposed the 108-month sentence only after listening to
and considering the parties’ evidence and arguments as to a reasonable sentence.
Moreover, the district court’s rejection of Roberts’s request for a sentence below
the Guidelines range, and finding that a sentence within the range was appropriate,
was not unreasonable, or an abuse of discretion. The district court noted that the
sentence imposed was appropriate given that the nature of the offense was “very,
very serious,” but Roberts did not have an extensive criminal history and he was
remorseful for his actions. Thus, the court explicitly discussed at least two of the
§ 3553(a) factors -- the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant, § 3553(a)(1), and the need to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, § 3553(a)(2)-- and these findings are sufficient to permit
meaningful appellate review of the chosen sentence and to promote the perception
of fair sentencing. The district court was not required to mention every § 3553(a)
factor. Cf. Williams, 456 F.3d at 1363 (noting that “[t]he weight to be accorded
any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the
4
district court”). And we can find no indication in the record to support Roberts’s
suggestion that the district judge applied a presumption that a within-Guidelines
sentence would reasonable.1
On this record, Roberts has not met his burden to establish
unreasonableness. Accordingly, we affirm his 108-month sentence.
AFFIRMED.
1
Cf. Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (holding that a court of appeals may
afford a presumption of reasonableness to a within-Guidelines sentence); United States v. Campbell,
491 F.3d 1306, 1314 n.8 (11th Cir. 2007) (noting that, although we have not normally afforded a
within-Guidelines sentence a presumption of reasonableness, the Rita decision calls that policy into
question).
5