[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-15593 MAY 6, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 06-00370-CR-J-34-TEM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BENJAMIN BURLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(May 6, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After accepting appellant’s plea of guilty to distribution cocaine base
(“crack cocaine”), in violation of 21 §§ U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C), the
district court sentenced him to prison for a term of 160 months. He now appeals
his sentence, contending that it is substantively unreasonable because the district
court did not appropriately weigh the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, giving too much weight to his criminal history and not enough to the
underlying offense and his personal characteristics. He also contends that the
court made a “mechanistic application” of the Sentencing Guidelines, rather than
taking into account the particular circumstances of his case.
The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. ___, ___, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169
L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Appellant “bears the burden of establishing that the sentence
is unreasonable in the light of both [the] record [before the sentencing court] and
the factors in section 3553(a).” United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th
Cir. 2005). Though sentences within the Guidelines sentence range are not
entitled to a presumption of reasonableness, the Guidelines are considered to be
“central to the sentencing process” and the imposition of a sentence within the
Guidelines sentence range would ordinarily be expected to be reasonable. Id. at
787, 788.
It is clear from the record that the district court considered the § 3553(a)
factors – both favorable and unfavorable from appellant’s point of view – in
2
fashioning appellant’s sentence. It is not this court’s role to substitute its
judgment for the district court’s. See United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 832
(11th Cir. 2007) (“The weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a
matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court . . . we will not
substitute our own judgement in weighing the relevant factors.”) (citations
omitted). Finally, appellant’s contention that the court used a “mechanistic
application” of the Guidelines has no support in the record. The court specifically
considered the possibility that appellant’s criminal history category of VI might
overrepresent his actual past behavior and potential for recidivism, but rejected it.
Appellant’s sentence is
AFFIRMED.
3