Case: 18-10927 Date Filed: 04/25/2019 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-10927
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cr-00006-CDL-MSH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER DELGESSO,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
__________________________
(April 25, 2019)
Before BRANCH, EDMONDSON, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-10927 Date Filed: 04/25/2019 Page: 2 of 5
Christopher Delgesso appeals his sentence for one count of possession of
child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). He argues
that the district court's 78-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because
(1) the court did not give proper weight to his mitigating circumstances and
(2) U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 does not establish a reasonable guideline range based on the
sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under the deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Foster,
878 F.3d 1297, 1304 (11th
Cir. 2018). The party who challenges the sentence bears the burden to show that
the sentence is unreasonable in the light of the record and the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Tome,
611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010).
The district court must impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than
necessary to comply with the purposes listed in § 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. United States. v. Irey,
612 F.3d 1160, 1196
(11th Cir. 2010) (en banc); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The court must also consider
the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of
the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).
2
Case: 18-10927 Date Filed: 04/25/2019 Page: 3 of 5
The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound
discretion of the district court. United States v. Langston,
590 F.3d 1226, 1237
(11th Cir. 2009). Due deference must be given to the district court's decision that
the § 3553(a) factors, as a whole, justify the extent of the variance. United States
v. Hayes,
762 F.3d 1300, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014). We will only remand for
resentencing when “left with the definite and 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.” United States v. Pugh,
515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008).
Nevertheless, a court can abuse its discretion 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 of judgment by balancing the
proper factors unreasonably. Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189.
In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence outside the guideline range,
we may take the degree of variance into account and consider the extent of a
deviation from the guidelines. Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 47 (2007). A
major variance should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor
variance, and the justification must be sufficiently compelling to support the
degree of the variance. Id. at 50. There is no “rigid mathematical formula that
3
Case: 18-10927 Date Filed: 04/25/2019 Page: 4 of 5
uses the percentage of a departure as the standard for determining the strength of
the justifications required for a specific sentence.” Id. at 47.
A sentence imposed well below the statutory maximum penalty is an
indicator of a reasonable sentence. See United States v. Gonzalez,
550 F.3d 1319,
1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that the sentence was reasonable in part because it
was well below the statutory maximum). Although the court need not presume
that a sentence within the guideline range is reasonable, we ordinarily expect a
sentence within the guideline range to be reasonable. United States v. Hunt,
526
F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008).
Sentencing judges can rely on what they have learned from similar cases
over the years, and they are not required to confine their considerations to
empirical studies. United States v. Shaw,
560 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009).
Moreover, the district court has discretion to disagree with the Sentencing
Guidelines' policies, but is not required to do so. Dell v. United States,
710 F.3d
1267, 1279 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining that a district court has discretion to vary
downward based upon its policy disagreement with, for example, the Sentencing
Guidelines' treatment of crack and powder cocaine, but is not required to do so.)
Here, the district court was within its discretion to impose a 78-month
sentence because it determined that a downward variance was not warranted in the
light of the quantity and content of the images and videos Delgesso obtained,
4
Case: 18-10927 Date Filed: 04/25/2019 Page: 5 of 5
which were relevant to the characteristics and seriousness of his offense. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A); Langston, 590 F.3d at 1237. The district court did not
abuse its discretion by refusing to adopt Delgesso's policy arguments on perceived
defects in § 2G2.2. See Dell, 710 F.3d at 1279; Shaw, 560 F.3d at 1238.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
5
