[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-11284 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPTEMBER 28, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 02-00045-CR-4-SPM-WCS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THYRON CORNELL RICHARDSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(September 28, 2009)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Thyron Cornell Richardson appeals his 168-month sentence for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of powder
cocaine and more than 50 grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846
and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii) and (b)(1)(A)(iii). On appeal, Richardson argues that
his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to
justify the sentence based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and substantively
unreasonable because the sentence was greater than necessary to serve the goals of
sentencing when compared to his codefendants’ sentences.
I.
“We review the sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness.”
United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 785 (11th Cir. 2005). Reasonableness
review requires the application of an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594, 169 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007). We
must first 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.
2
Id. at __, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If the district court’s decision is procedurally
reasonable, our analysis then turns to the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. Id.
“In reviewing the ultimate sentence imposed by the district court for
reasonableness, we consider the final sentence, in its entirety, in light of the
§ 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Thomas, 446 F.3d 1348, 1351 (11th Cir.
2006). “[W]e may find that a district court has abused its considerable discretion if
it has weighed the factors in a manner that demonstrably yields an unreasonable
sentence.” United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008). While we
have rejected the notion that a within-guideline-range sentence is per se
reasonable, we have stated that, “when the district court imposes a sentence within
the advisory Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a
reasonable one.” Talley, 431 F.3d at 788. Moreover, we have noted that
comparing the sentence imposed against the statutory maximum sentence is one
indication of reasonableness. See United States v. Valnor, 451 F.3d 744, 751-52
(11th Cir. 2006).
Pursuant to § 3553(a), the sentencing court shall impose a sentence
“sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in
paragraph (2) of this subsection,” namely to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
3
promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, deter criminal
conduct, protect the public from future crimes of the defendant, and provide the
defendant with needed educational or vocational training or medical care. See
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The sentencing court must also consider the following
factors in determining a particular sentence: the nature and circumstances of the
offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences
available, the sentencing guidelines range, the pertinent policy statements of the
Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities, and
the need to provide restitution to victims. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
The district court does not need “to state on the record that it has explicitly
considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the § 3553(a)
factors.” United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005). Rather, a
district court’s rationale is legally sufficient where the record makes clear that it
has considered the evidence and the arguments. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
338, 358-59, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2469, 168 L. Ed. 2d 203 (2007).
Because the record demonstrates that the district court satisfied its obligation
to explain the sentence when it stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors
and Richardson’s arguments, we conclude that Richardson’s challenge to the
procedural reasonableness of his sentence is unavailing. We also conclude that
4
Richardson’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence is also
unavailing because the record shows the district court imposed a within-guideline-
range sentence in consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, we affirm
Richardson’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
5