[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-12658 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEBRUARY 3, 2012
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-00383-TCB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS LEBRON GARRETT,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(February 3, 2012)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, HULL and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Thomas Lebron Garrett appeals his 9-month sentence, imposed
after admitting to violations of his supervised release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e). On appeal, Garrett argues that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable when compared to his circumstances. Garrett contends that he
should have received a sentence below the low-end of the guideline range.
This court reviews de novo “the legality of a sentence, including a sentence
imposed pursuant to revocation of a term of supervised release.” United States v.
Mazarky, 499 F.3d 1246, 1248 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The reasonableness of a final sentence is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008). This
includes reviewing the final sentence for both procedural and substantive
reasonableness. United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).
“The review for substantive unreasonableness involves examining the totality of
the circumstances, including an inquiry into whether the statutory factors in [18
U.S.C.] § 3553(a) support the sentence in question.” Id. “[T]he party who
challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is
unreasonable in the light of both [the] record and the factors in section 3553(a).”
United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005). “The weight to be
2
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).
This court will vacate a sentence only if we are “left with the definite and
firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in
weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range
of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v. Irey,
612 F.3d 1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1813
(2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Although we do not automatically
presume a sentence within the guidelines range is reasonable, ‘we ordinarily
expect a sentence within the Guidelines range to be reasonable.’” United States v.
Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Talley, 431 F.3d at 788)
(alterations omitted).
When sentencing a defendant upon revocation of supervised release
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), a district court must consider: (1) the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to
promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense, to
afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, to protect the public from further
crimes of the defendant, and to provide the defendant with training, medical care,
3
or correctional treatment; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the sentencing
guidelines’ range; (5) pertinent Sentencing Commission policy statements; (6) the
need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated
defendants with similar records; and (7) the need to provide restitution to victims.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (providing that the court must consider the sentencing
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when sentencing a defendant upon
revocation of supervised release); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We conclude from the record that Garrett’s 9-month sentence was
substantively reasonable. The district court properly considered all the factors and
imposed a within-range guideline sentence, which we conclude to be reasonable.
Garrett had multiple violations during his supervised release and demonstrated no
desire to reform. Rather, he continued to engage in drug activity, despite multiple
attempts at deterrence, including a lengthy sentence for his underlying offense.
The district court’s chosen sentence was reasonable, and we affirm Garrett’s
sentence.
AFFIRMED.
4