United States v. Seville Weathington ( 2015 )

Case: 15-11130 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11130
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00121-WSD-RGV-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SEVILLE WEATHINGTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(December 21, 2015)
Before MARCUS, WILSON, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-11130 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Seville Weathington appeals his total 40-month sentence, imposed after
pleading guilty to one count of dealing firearms without a license, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A) and (2), and one count of possessing marijuana with
intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). On
appeal, Weathington argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable in
light of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He contends that, considering his
disability and limited socio-economic background, the total 40-month sentence
was excessive for the offense, even though his advisory guideline range was 108 to
135 months. However, Weathington has not carried his burden of showing that his
below-guidelines sentence is unreasonable in light of the record and the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Valnor, 451 F.3d 744, 750 (11th
Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm.
Generally, we review the reasonableness of a sentence “under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct.
586, 591 (2007). We will not vacate a sentence as substantively unreasonable
unless “left with the definite and firm conviction” that the sentencing court clearly
erred in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and issued a sentence “outside
the range of reasonable sentences.” United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258,
1264–65 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
Case: 15-11130 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 Page: 3 of 4
The district court is required to 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 need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the
law, provide just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect
the public from the defendant’s future criminal conduct. In imposing a particular
sentence, the district court should also consider, inter alia, the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and
the applicable guideline range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).
Weathington does not argue that the district court committed any procedural
error, nor does the record reflect that it did. As to substantive reasonableness,
Weathington, who was born with cerebral palsy, argues that the court failed to give
due consideration to his disability and socio-economic background under
§ 3553(a). However, the court explicitly considered these factors, hearing from
both Weathington and his mother with regard to his physical handicaps and stating
that Weathington’s disability constituted “extenuating circumstances” in the case
that merited consideration in the sentencing determination. We will not second-
guess the weight that the sentencing judge accorded this factor; the record is clear
that the court considered all the § 3553 factors and the particular circumstances of
this case when sentencing Weathington. See United States v. Snipes, 611 F.3d 855,
872 (11th Cir. 2010).
3
Case: 15-11130 Date Filed: 12/21/2015 Page: 4 of 4
Moreover, the 40-month sentence imposed was well below the 120-month
statutory maximum, which is another factor demonstrating its reasonableness. See
Valnor, 451 F.3d at 751–52 (considering that a sentence was “appreciably below
the length of the statutory maximum” in assessing its reasonableness); see also
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597 (noting that the substantive reasonableness
of a sentence is determined in light of the totality of the circumstances). Therefore,
upon review of the record, the relevant case law, and consideration of the parties’
arguments, we affirm the sentence as reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
4