USA v. Jon Sabourin

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jon Lee Sabourin. 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: 16-16484

Date Filed: 07/21/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16484
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cr-60095-BB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JON LEE SABOURIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 21, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-16484

Date Filed: 07/21/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Jon Lee Sabourin appeals the substantive reasonableness of his 121-month
sentence, imposed after he pled guilty to distribution of child pornography in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (b)(1). Mr. Sabourin argues that the district
court erred because his sentence was “greater than necessary” to achieve the
sentencing goals of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). Upon review, we affirm.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A sentence falls
within “a range of choice for the district court, so long as that choice does not
constitute a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244,
1259 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (citation omitted).
Our review of a substantive reasonableness challenge entails “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.”

United States v.

Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1323–24 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). The district
court’s acknowledgment that it has considered the defendant’s arguments and the
§ 3553(a) factors will generally suffice, and “[w]e will defer to the district court’s
judgment regarding the weight given to the § 3553(a) factors unless the district
court has made ‘a clear error of judgment’ and has imposed ‘a sentence that lies
outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.’”

2

Case: 16-16484

Date Filed: 07/21/2017

Page: 3 of 3

Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 1324 (citation omitted). The district court need not discuss
or state each § 3553(a) factor explicitly. See United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324,
1329 (11th Cir. 2005).
The district court’s sentence here was not unreasonable. The court explicitly
took into account certain § 3553(a) factors it believed justified the sentence
imposed. See Tr. of Sentencing Hearing, D.E. 60 at 22–23. The court emphasized
that the sentence reflected a need to promote respect for the law and the
seriousness of this offense, considered the Sentencing Commission’s report, and
reviewed an expert’s report concluding Mr. Sabourin fell “in the low-risk range for
the expression of a sexual contact offense with a juvenile.” Id. The district court,
moreover, varied downward slightly and gave Mr. Sabourin a sentence below the
initial guideline range of 151–188 months. Mr. Sabourin offers no argument for
why his sentence was unreasonable, other than a conclusory statement that the
sentence was too harsh. See Appellant’s Br. at 12.
Given the record before us, there is no basis to disturb the district court’s
sentence.
AFFIRMED.

3