USA v. Terrence George

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Terrence George. 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: 17-10687

Date Filed: 09/21/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-10687
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20291-UU-7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TERRENCE GEORGE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 21, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Terrence George appeals his 30-month sentence for illegally reentering the

Case: 17-10687

Date Filed: 09/21/2017

Page: 2 of 4

United States after being removed and deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),
(b)(2).
We will review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse of
discretion standard. United States v. Alvarado, 808 F.3d 474, 496 (11th Cir. 2015).
In reviewing a sentence, we first review the sentence for significant
procedural errors, such as improperly calculating the guideline range or
inadequately explaining the chosen sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007).

We then consider whether the sentence was substantively

reasonable, taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. Id. The party challenging the reasonableness of the sentence
has the burden to show that it is unreasonable. Alvarado, 808 F.3d at 496.
The district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to comply with the purposes” listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), including
the needs to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to
provide just punishment for the offense, to deter criminal conduct, and to protect
the public from the defendant’s future criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
In imposing a particular sentence, the district court must also consider the nature
and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant,
the kinds of sentences available, the applicable guideline range, pertinent policy

2

Case: 17-10687

Date Filed: 09/21/2017

Page: 3 of 4

statements of the Sentencing Commission, and the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(6).
A determination about how much weight is given to any 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factor is a matter within the district court’s discretion. We will not substitute our
own judgment unless the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Alvarado, 808
F.3d at 496. A district court imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence when
it (1) fails to consider relevant factors that were due significant weight, (2) gives an
improper or irrelevant factor significant weight, or (3) commits a clear error in
judgment by balancing proper factors unreasonably. United States v. Irey, 612
F.3d 1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). A district court is entitled to place
substantial weight on a defendant’s criminal history: five of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors the district court is required to consider are related to criminal
history. United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1263 (11th Cir. 2015).
When weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court has
discretion to determine whether a variance is warranted.
Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258, 1264 (11th Cir. 2010).

United States v.

The district court must

determine that a justification “sufficiently compelling” exists to support a variance
outside the guideline range. United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir.
2010).

The district court must support the degree of an upward variance with a

3

Case: 17-10687

Date Filed: 09/21/2017

Page: 4 of 4

compelling and complete justification to allow for appellate review. United States
v. Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2014).
Sentences outside the guideline range are not presumed to be unreasonable.
We will defer to the district court’s decision that the variance was justified. Id.
That a sentence imposed is well below the statutory maximum penalty is an
indicator of reasonableness. United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1310 (11th
Cir. 2016).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in varying to 30 months. The
district court explicitly considered George’s criminal history, his request for a
sentence within the 24-to-30 month guideline range, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors; but the court concluded that George’s criminal history weighed against
varying lower than 30 months from the originally calculated range of 57 to 71
months. The district court sentenced George to approximately half of what he
could have been sentenced to under the applicable guideline range. Furthermore,
George’s sentence of 30 months falls well below the statutory maximum of 20
years, suggesting substantive reasonableness. We accept that George’s 30-month
sentence was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to account for the purposes
of the § 3553(a) factors.
AFFIRMED.

4