Filed: Jun. 15, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 09-16043 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUNE 15, 2010 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 08-80128-CR-KLR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SAMMIE MCKENZIE, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (June 15, 2010) Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Sammie McKenzie app
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-16043 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 15, 2010
D. C. Docket No. 08-80128-CR-KLR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
(June 15, 2010)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
Sammie McKenzie appeals his 71-month sentence imposed following his
guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1). McKenzie asserts his sentence was unreasonable, in light of the
factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because (1) his history and personal characteristics
warranted a downward variance from the advisory guideline range of 57 to 71
months (2) the court's imposition of a 71-month sentence, as a means of providing
McKenzie with educational and vocational training, was unreasonably harsh and
greater than necessary to provide McKenzie with such training and (3) the court
placed too much emphasis on this one factor.
In reviewing a sentencing decision,1 we must ensure both procedural and
substantive reasonableness. Gall, 128 S. Ct at 590. We must first determine the
sentence was procedurally reasonable. Id. at 597.
Factors the Court must consider
in determining procedural reasonableness include whether the district court:
properly calculated the Guidelines range, improperly treated the Guidelines as
mandatory, failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selected a sentence based on
“clearly erroneous facts,” or failed to adequately explain its chosen sentence. Id.
review a final sentence imposed by a district court for reasonableness. United States
v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241
, 1245 (11th Cir. 2005). Reasonableness review is akin to the
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586
, 591 (2007).
Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, this Court will not reverse a district court so long as the
district court's ruling “does not constitute a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Frazier,
387 F.3d 1244
, 1259 (11th Cir. 2004).
After determining the sentence is procedurally reasonable, we must then consider
the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. A sentence
reasonable if, under the totality of the circumstances, it achieves the purposes of
§ 3553(a). United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179
, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008).
The party challenging the sentence has the burden of establishing the
sentence is unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors. Talley,
431 F.3d at 788
. This Court has held that it ordinarily expects a sentence within
the Guidelines range to be reasonable. Id.
sentence is reasonable. The district court committed
no significant procedural error. The court correctly calculated the applicable
Guidelines range, and treated those Guidelines as advisory, not mandatory. The
court allowed both parties to present arguments as to what they believed would be
an appropriate sentence. The court considered the § 3553(a) factors, and
documented its reasoning in imposing a 71-month sentence. The district court set
out a reasonable explanation for its sentencing decision. While McKenzie argues
the district court placed undue emphasis on his need to receive educational and
vocational training, the record shows the court used that as only one factor in
making its sentencing determination. McKenzie has not met his burden to show
his sentence was either procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Accordingly,