USA v. Anthony Defeo

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Anthony Michael Defeo. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-10269

Date Filed: 08/23/2016

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10269
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-00058-JES-CM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY MICHAEL DEFEO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 23, 2016)

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-10269

Date Filed: 08/23/2016

Page: 2 of 3

Anthony Defeo appeals his 110-month sentence, imposed within the
advisory guideline range, after pleading guilty to wire fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1343. On appeal, Defeo argues that the district court abused its discretion
by denying his motions for departure and variance. 1
Nothing in the record shows the district court misunderstood its authority to
grant the downward departure Defeo requested, so we lack jurisdiction to review
the district court’s discretionary refusal to grant it. See United States v. Dudley,
463 F.3d 1221, 1228 (11th Cir. 2006) (explaining we lack jurisdiction to review a
district court’s discretionary refusal to grant a downward departure unless the
district court incorrectly believed it lacked authority to depart from the guideline
range). Further, Defeo’s conclusory assertion, that the trial court abused its
discretion by denying his requests for variances, fails to meet his burden to show
that his 110-month within-guideline sentence is unreasonable. See United States v.
Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating the party challenging the
sentence bears the burden of proving the sentence is unreasonable in light of the
record and the § 3553(a) factors and that we ordinarily expect a within-guidelines
sentence to be reasonable). The district court explained it considered the § 3553(a)
factors, particularly Defeo’s history of fraudulent activity, and found very little to
mitigate Defeo’s actions. Defeo’s sentence is not outside the range of reasonable
1

Because we write for the parties, we set out only what is necessary to explain our

decision.
2

Case: 15-10269

Date Filed: 08/23/2016

Page: 3 of 3

sentences dictated by the facts of this case. See United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d
1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (explaining we will reverse if left with the
“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”). Accordingly, we affirm
Defeo’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.

3